Kiwanuka & 2 Ors v Gaira & 5 Ors (Civil Application No .212 of 2017)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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 (single Justice) dismissed an application for leave to file a reference out of time. The applicants claimed counsel could not file in time because he had lost his mother, but the letter said to prove the death was never attached and counsel conceded this in rejoinder. The Court found no proof of the alleged death and therefore no sufficient cause, noting also dilatory conduct given the delay between the ruling and the filing. The Court further observed the intended reference was diversionary and would only delay the substantive claim for terminal benefits. The application was dismissed with costs to be paid personally by counsel for the applicants.

Outcome

Application for leave to file a reference out of time dismissed

Facts

The applicants and others, numbering around 500, were Public Service employees of the Internal Security Organization (ISO) whose employment was terminated during public service restructuring. They sued the Attorney General in a representative suit (HCCS No. 164 of 2004) and obtained judgment for terminal benefits, allowances, general damages and interest. The Attorney General's subsequent appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, and an application to reinstate it remained pending. The respondents had sought, in an application before a single Justice (Hon. Justice Kasule), to be substituted as representatives of the claimants; that application was dismissed. The applicants wished to file a reference challenging the single Justice's decision but failed to do so within the seven-day period prescribed by Rule 55(1)(b). They sought leave to file out of time, asserting their counsel could not act in time because he had lost his mother and had attached a letter as proof, although no such letter was in fact attached.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause to justify granting leave to file a reference challenging the decision of a single Justice out of time.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs to be personally paid by counsel for the applicants to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.5
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.55(1)(b)
• Judicature Act s.12(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 Rule 8

Cases cited (3)

• Kassaja v Gume and Another (Criminal Application No. 56 of 2016)
• Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
• Roussos v Virani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)

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