Wakilii

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

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 116 · 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 remitted 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, finding that the applicant's counsel was prevented from attending court by sufficient cause — the death of his guardian. While the court noted the applicant's pattern of non-compliance with court directives, it held that constitutional principles requiring substantive justice and the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution warranted setting aside the ex parte order. The court directed that the matter proceed to hearing with no further adjournments permitted.

Outcome

Ex parte order set aside; matter remitted 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 this application on 7 February 2022 seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The applicant's counsel attributed his absence to the untimely death of his guardian and claimed he had requested the respondent's counsel to seek an adjournment. The record showed that the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with court directives to file trial documents since December 2019, despite multiple extensions and undertakings. The respondents opposed the application, citing the applicant's dilatory conduct and disinterest in defending the main reference.

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 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, 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 for hearing. Sufficient cause includes compassionate grounds such as the death of counsel's guardian, and mistakes of counsel ought not to be visited upon the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional Principles — Substantive Justice over Technicalities
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution enjoins courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Coupled with the right to a fair hearing under Article 28, courts should investigate the substance of disputes and decide cases on the merits, and errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of his rights. 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 and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Fred Kyewalabye v Richard Ssevume and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • Eriga Jos Perino v Vuzzi Azza Victor and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2017)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Registered Trustees of Kasese Diocese v Benuza Jane (Labour Dispute Judgment No. 145 of 2017)
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Court of Appeal 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_116_(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.