Wakilii

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

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 125 · 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
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 held that an ex parte order may be set aside where counsel was prevented by sufficient cause from attending court. The death of counsel's guardian constituted sufficient cause, and counsel's failure to brief a colleague was a negligent act that should not be visited upon the litigant. The court granted the application to set aside the ex parte order, emphasising the constitutional duty to administer substantive justice and the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.

Outcome

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

Facts

The Applicant, Makerere University Business School, failed to appear when Labour Dispute Reference No. 134 of 2017 came up for hearing on 13 January 2022. The court directed the Respondents to proceed ex parte. Two witnesses testified. The Applicant subsequently filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, attributing counsel's absence to the untimely death of his guardian. The Applicant's counsel, Mr. Charles Nsubuga, had allegedly requested the Respondent's counsel to seek an adjournment but was surprised when the matter proceeded ex parte. The Respondents opposed the application, citing the Applicant's dilatory conduct and persistent failure to comply with court directions, including repeated failures to file trial documents as ordered.

Issues

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

Orders

  • Application to set aside the ex parte order allowed.
  • Labour Dispute Reference No. 134 of 2017 set down for hearing on 25 January 2023 at 11:30 a.m.
  • No further adjournments permitted in the matter.
  • Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of Labour Dispute Reference 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, an ex parte order may be set aside where a party satisfies the court that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the matter was called for hearing. Sufficient cause includes compassionate grounds such as the death of counsel's guardian.
Civil Procedure — Counsel's Negligence — Effect on Litigant
Where counsel is prevented from attending court by sufficient cause arising from compassionate circumstances, the failure to brief a colleague to attend on their behalf is a negligent act which ought not to be visited upon the litigant.
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. Article 28 guarantees the right to a fair hearing. Denying a party a hearing should be the last resort of court, and errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of their rights.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Henry Kawalya v J. Kinyakwazi (1975) HCB 386
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Fred Kyewalabye v Richard Ssevume & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • Gregory Baliddawo vs Nile Breweries Ltd
  • Eriga Jos Perino v Vuzzi Azza Victor & 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2017)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Tiberio Okeny & Another v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • LDMA No.145/2017 The Registered Trustees of Kasese Diocese vs Benuza Jane
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)

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_125_(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.