Kabandize & 20 Ors v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that although the appellants failed on the facts to prove service of a statutory notice of intention to sue, the requirement under section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to serve such notice on Government, local authorities or scheduled corporations is discriminatory and, read with Articles 20(1) and 274 of the Constitution, is no longer mandatory. Non-compliance therefore does not render a suit incompetent. The appeal succeeded on the alternative ground. The Court set aside the High Court judgment and remitted the file for the suit to be concluded on the merits, also finding the appellants were entitled to payment under section 62(2) of the Local Government Act.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court to conclude the suit on the merits.

Facts

The 21 appellants were employed by Kampala City Council (later substituted by Kampala Capital City Authority) on permanent terms for periods ranging from 6 to 36 years. On 1 April 1997 the respondent terminated their employment and paid each a package specified in their termination letters. The appellants were dissatisfied, claiming the amounts were less than their entitlement under their terms and conditions of service, and sued in the High Court. After both parties had closed their cases, the hearing was re-opened, at the appellants' instance, to adduce evidence of service of a statutory notice of intention to sue under section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The trial Judge dismissed the suit as incompetent, holding the appellants had failed to prove service of the statutory notice, and did not determine the remedies despite a full trial involving 22 appellant witnesses and one defence witness.

Issues

1. Whether the appellants proved that they served a statutory notice of intention to sue upon the respondent.
2. Whether a suit filed without serving a statutory notice of intention to sue under section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act is incompetent, given Articles 20(1) and 274 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the trial Judge erred in failing to determine the remedies prayed for after a full trial despite dismissing the suit on a point of law.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment of the High Court set aside.
• Trial file sent back to the High Court with a direction that the trial Judge or his successor conclude the hearing and disposal of the suit on the merits as if the preliminary objection had been dismissed.
• Appellants awarded half of the costs in the Court of Appeal.
• No order as to costs in the Court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Civil Procedure and Limitations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.2
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.20(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.274
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.273(1)
• Government Proceedings Act Cap 69 s.15(2)
• Local Government Act 1997 s.62(2)
• Local Government Act Cap 243 s.61
• Local Government Act s.59(3)
• Local Government Act s.60(3)
• Urban Authorities Ordinance 1958 s.27
• Pensions Act
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30

Cases cited (11)

• Crested Crane Tours and Travel Ltd v Kampala City Council (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2004)
• Dr. James Rwanyarare versus Attorney General (2003) 2 EA 664
• Attorney General v Osotraco Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
• Osotraco Ltd vs Attorney General (2003) 2 E A 254
• Jaundoo v Attorney-General of Guyana (1971) AC 972
• Levesque v Attorney General of Canada et al (1985) 25DLR 184
• Rao and Company v State of AP (1994) AIR SC 2663
• Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Pandya vs. R. (1957) E.A 336
• Okeno vs Republic (1972) E.A. 32
• Charles B. Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)

Cases citing this judgment (7)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2014)
• Attorney General and 3 Others v TaJ Eports (U) Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 786 of 2020) followed
• Nampongo and Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012)
• Menge v District Local Government (Civil Appeal No. 153 of 2012)
• Kampala Capital City Authority v Kabandize & 10 Ors (Civil Appeal 13 of 2014)
• Nambale Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 58 of 2017)
• UGANDA GINNERS & COTTON EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION L T D & ORS v MUDDU AWULIRA ENTERPRISES L T D (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.