Wakilii

Muleme v Absa Bank Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 49 of 2023)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 91 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim injunction arising from pending application for temporary injunction, itself arising from labour dispute reference
Decision
Interim injunction granted restraining respondent from dealing with applicant's property pending determination of substantive application for temporary injunction

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 advocate may swear an affidavit on behalf of a client where instructed to do so and the matters deposed are within the advocate's knowledge. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent bank from selling, alienating, or dealing with the applicant's mortgaged property pending determination of the substantive application for temporary injunction, finding that the applicant remained the registered proprietor and that a pending substantive application existed. The court rejected the preliminary objections to the respondent's affidavit in reply.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted restraining respondent from dealing with applicant's property pending determination of substantive application for temporary injunction

Facts

Eddy Muleme was dismissed from employment with Absa Bank Uganda Ltd on 23 July 2018. He had secured a loan facility against property in Block 392, Plot 984, Sekiwunga Busiro, Wakiso District. After dismissal, the bank recalled the loan and commenced foreclosure proceedings. Muleme obtained interim relief from the Commercial Division of the High Court from 2019 until 7 December 2022, when the main cause for injunction was dismissed. He filed a labour dispute reference challenging his dismissal in September 2021. Following an eviction notice dated 10 March 2023, he applied for an interim order restraining the bank from dealing with the property until his application for temporary injunction was heard. The bank alleged that Muleme had abused the earlier administrative injunction, had vacated the property and handed over vacant possession, and was forum shopping. Muleme remained the registered proprietor of the property.

Issues

  1. Whether Mr. Waniala's affidavit in reply was defective for failure to disclose the means of his knowledge.
  2. Whether Mr. Waniala's affidavit offended Rule 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations by an advocate giving evidence in a contentious matter.
  3. Whether Mr. Waniala's affidavit disclosed a reasonable answer to the application.
  4. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a grant of an interim injunction.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections overruled.
  • Application for interim injunction granted.
  • Interim order of injunction issued restraining the respondent, its servants, workmen/women, assignees, or anyone acting under their direction or authority or anyone claiming under or through them from selling, alienating, and/or dealing with the applicant's suit property comprised in Block 392 Plot 984, Sekiwunga Busiro, Wakiso District until the determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 048 of 2023.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Advocate Swearing Affidavit — Disclosure of Means of Knowledge
An advocate may swear an affidavit on behalf of a client where the advocate states that they have instructions from the client to make the affidavit and the matters deposed are within the advocate's knowledge, satisfying the requirements of Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Order 3 Rule 1 CPR.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Advocate as Deponent — Professional Conduct
Rule 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, which bars an advocate from appearing in a matter where they would be required to give evidence, is not breached where the advocate swears an affidavit on instructions from the client but does not appear as counsel in the application.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunction — Conditions for Grant — Status Quo
An interim order of injunction is intended to preserve the status quo until the court resolves all matters. Where an applicant remains the registered proprietor of property according to the certificate of title and no evidence of sale agreement or deed of transfer is produced, the status quo is that the applicant is the registered holder of the title.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunction — Pending Substantive Application
Under Order 50 Rule 3A(3) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019, an interim order may only be granted where there is a pending substantive application. A court hearing an application for interim relief must be satisfied that there is a pending substantive application.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court Jurisdiction — Ancillary Matters — Forum Shopping
Matters ancillary to, arising from, or relating to the employment relationship, including matters relating to salary loans, should be consolidated into the employment dispute before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court is a special court to handle labour disputes and claims under any other law arising from the employment relationship.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (21)

  • Mugoya Construction Ltd v Central Electricals Ltd (HCMA No. 699 of 2011)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998)
  • Micro Credit for Development and Transformation Cooperative Savings and Credit Society v Semanda Edward (HCMA No. 101 of 2021)
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates v Mineral Access Systems (U) Ltd
  • Oloka Onyango & Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
  • MHK Engineers Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (HCMA No. 825 of 2018)
  • Kanyarugu v Hon Namara Grace (CACA No. 168 of 2012)
  • Mbarara Municipal Council v Jetha Brothers (SCMA No. 10 of 2021)
  • Niko Insurance Ltd v Southern Union Insurance Brokers Ltd & 4 Others (HCMA No. 817 of 2016)
  • Ssekikubo & 3 Ors v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 04 of 2014)
  • Alcon International v New Vision Newspaper (SCCA No. 04 of 2010)
  • Progressive Group of Schools Ltd & 2 Others v Absa Bank (U) Ltd & Another (CACA No. 349 of 2020)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (MA No. 21 of 2022)
  • Uganda v Hon Kassiano Wadri & 31 Ors (HC Crim Rev No. 002 of 2018)
  • Chemical Distributors (U) Ltd v Byaruhanga Silver (Co. Cause No. 142 of 2017)
  • ABSA Bank Uganda Ltd & 2 Others v Electro-Maxx L (U) Ltd and Another (HCMA No. 241 of 2020)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende
  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Another (SCCA No. 4 of 2010)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein (SCCA No. 19 of 2008)
  • Engineer John Eric Mugenyi v Uganda Electricity Generation Company Ltd (CACA No. 167 of 2018)
  • Mutono Lauben v Kampala International University (LDR No. 335 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muleme_v_Absa_Bank_Uganda_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_49_of_2023)_[2023]_UGIC_91_(27_June_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.