National Union of Clerical Commercial Professional & Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal 17 of 1993)

Observed later treatment

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 question was whether the High Court could invoke its inherent powers under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act where a specific remedy such as certiorari or mandamus was available. The Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternative procedure, provision or remedy does not restrict or exclude the court's inherent jurisdiction; it is merely one factor bearing on the discretionary exercise of that power, the issue being one of discretion rather than jurisdiction. However, the trial judge had granted declarations without hearing the application on its merits, denying the parties a fair hearing. The appeal was allowed in part and a retrial of the application before another judge ordered.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; the order granting the declarations set aside and a retrial of the application on the merits ordered before another judge.

Facts

A trade dispute arose between the appellant trade union and the respondent employer concerning the terms and conditions of service of the union's members for 1990. Negotiations over salaries and allowances broke down, and the dispute was referred to the Minister of Labour under the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, who in turn referred it to the Industrial Court. On 4 June 1992 the Industrial Court found in favour of the appellants and made orders as to the effective dates of the various awards. The respondent challenged the award in the High Court, which granted two declarations: that the Industrial Court had no power to review its decision, and that its failure to allow cross-examination of a witness amounted to a denial of natural justice. The respondent had invoked the court's inherent powers under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act despite the availability of certiorari and mandamus. The appellants appealed, contending that inherent powers could not be invoked where an express remedy existed and that the judge had given judgment on the application without hearing its merits.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court could invoke its inherent powers under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act where a specific remedy such as certiorari or mandamus was available to the respondent.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in giving judgment on the merits of the application without having heard the parties on those merits.
3. Whether the trial judge ought to have ruled on the preliminary objection before proceeding to entertain the application on its merits.

Orders

• Appeal allowed in part.
• The trial judge's decision overruling the preliminary objection upheld.
• The order granting the declarations set aside.
• Retrial of the application on the merits ordered before another judge.
• Appellants awarded half of the costs of the appeal.
• Costs in the lower court to be costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Act s.101
• Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 1964
• Civil Procedure Rules O.42 r.1

Cases cited (7)

• Attorney General v ... Civil Application No. 5 of 1986
• Oryema Boniface v UEB HCCS No.1236/88
• Connie ... v ... INEC HCSS No. .../90
• Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union v Uganda Transport Co. Ltd (1979) U.L.R.
• Mwai v Mombasa Hardware Ltd [1968] EA 192
• Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
• ... Singh v Buganda Coffee Estates Ltd (1966) EA

Cases citing this judgment (20)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Timbigamba Simon and Others v Ker Kwaro Palabek and Others (Civil Misc. Application No. 150 of 2021)
• Lubega Leonald v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 34 of 2023)
• Lubega Leonald v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 34 of 2023)
• Allan Makula and Others v I-Engineering Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0191 of 2024)
• China Forestry International Development Co. Limited v China Shandong Hispeed Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 11 of 2024) applied
• Komax Motor Vehicle Company Limited and 2 Others v Idha (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2023)
• Simba Properties Investments Co Limited and 5 Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and 6 Others (Civil Appeal 2 of 2023) applied
• Simba Properties Investments Co. Limited and 5 Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and 6 Others (Civil Appeal 2 of 2023) applied
• Ochwo Olanya v Ochaya and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2022)
• H and G Advocates (Foemerly Kateera and Kagumire Advocates) v International Aids Vaccine Initiatives and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Taxation Appeal No. 5 of 2021)
• Steve Williams v Kyaninga Royal Cottages Limited (Civil Appeal 9 of 2019)
• Simbamanyo Estates Limited and Another v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 16 of 2021; Civil Appeal 24 of 2021)
• Visare Uganda Limited v M S Gadala and Nshekanabo Advocates (Civil Appeal 1322 of 2021) applied
• Twinobusingye v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 27 of 2013)
• Sebugwawo v Tropical Micro Enterprenuers Saving & Credit Society Ltd (Revision Cause No. 14 of 2013) followed
• Byamugisha v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No. 19 of 2012)
• Byamugisha t a J.B. Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012)
• Kabaale Kwagala Olivia v Beatrice Zirabamuzale Magola & Anor (Misc. Apeal No 34 Of 2010) (Misc. Apeal No 34 of 2010) applied
• Electoral Commission & Anor v Abdu Katuntu (Misc. Appeals No. 1 of 2009&2 of 2010) applied
• Ayub Sulaiman v Salim Kabambalo [1998] UGSC 5

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