Wakilii

Makerere University Business School v Amolo and 19 Others (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 28 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte order in Labour Dispute Reference No. 134 of 2017
Decision
Ex parte order set aside; matter set down for inter partes hearing

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.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Industrial Court granted the application to set aside an ex parte order under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court found that the Applicant's counsel was prevented by sufficient cause from attending court due to the death of his guardian, and that counsel's mistake should not be visited upon the litigant. Despite the Applicant's history of non-compliance with court directives, the Court applied constitutional principles requiring substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities and guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing under Articles 126(2)(e) and 28 of the Constitution.

Outcome

Ex parte order set aside; matter set down for inter partes hearing

Facts

Makerere University Business School applied to set aside an ex parte order issued in Labour Dispute Reference No. 134 of 2017. The matter had been scheduled for hearing on 13 January 2022. The Applicant's counsel, Mr. Charles Nsubuga, did not attend court on that date due to the death of his guardian. The Respondents were permitted to proceed ex parte and two witnesses testified. The Applicant filed this application on 7 February 2022 seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The Respondents opposed the application, citing the Applicant's dilatory conduct and persistent failure to comply with court directions throughout the proceedings, which had been pending since 2017.

Issues

  1. Whether the order passed ex parte against the Applicant should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application to set aside the ex parte order is allowed.
  • Labour Dispute Reference No. 134 of 2017 is set down for hearing on 25 January 2023 at 11:30 a.m.
  • There are to be no further adjournments in this matter.
  • Costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of LDR No. 134 of 2017.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Orders — Setting Aside — Sufficient Cause
Under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court shall set aside an ex parte order if the defendant satisfies the court that he or she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Sufficient cause includes compassionate grounds such as the death of counsel's guardian.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Effect on Litigant
A mistake or negligent act of counsel ought not to be visited upon the litigant. Where counsel fails to brief a colleague to attend court due to compassionate circumstances, this failure should not deprive the litigant of the right to be heard.
Constitutional Law — Right to Fair Hearing — Substantive Justice
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution enjoins courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Courts are called to investigate the substance of disputes and decide cases on the merits. Error and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of their rights. Article 28 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and denying a subject a hearing should be the last resort of court.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Henry Kawalya v J. Kinyakwazi (1975) HCB 386
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General & Others (SCCA No. 9 of 1986)
  • Fred Kyewalabye v Richard Ssevume & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2004)
  • Eriga Jos Perino v Vuzzi Azza Victor & 2 Others (HCMA No. 0009 of 2017)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Tiberio Okeny & Another v Attorney General (CACA No. 51 of 2001)
  • Registered Trustees of Kasese Diocese v Benuza Jane (LDMA No. 145 of 2017)
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Gregory Baliddawo vs Nile Breweries Ltd

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makerere_University_Business_School_v_Amolo_and_19_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_14_of_2022)_[2023]_UGIC_28_(16_January_2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.