Strabag International GMBH v Turyahebwa (Miscellaneous Application 43 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application by Strabag International GMBH for leave to appeal out of time from a workers compensation award. The Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, having been present at the initial hearing when the adjournment date was set but failing to attend subsequent proceedings. The Court found that the applicant's claim of not being informed of hearing dates was contradicted by court records showing counsel's attendance throughout. The rationale for requiring leave to appeal is to prevent frivolous appeals, and negligence by a party's legal representative cannot be visited upon an already physically impaired respondent.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal and extension of time dismissed

Facts

The respondent Turyahebwa Lameck filed a workers compensation claim against the applicant company Strabag International GMBH in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Adjumani arising from eye injuries rendering both eyes non-functional. The applicant filed a defence through M/S Angualia Busiku & Co. Advocates denying the claim. The human resource manager and counsel attended the first hearing on 6 July 2022 when the matter was adjourned to 7 September 2022. The applicant failed to attend subsequent hearings and judgment was entered. The applicant only learned of the ruling dated 16 October 2022 in March 2023 after being served with a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. The applicant filed this application seeking leave to appeal out of time, claiming no admission was made and no proper hearing was conducted. Court records showed the applicant's counsel attended all four court sittings.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant has adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of leave to appeal out of time.
2. Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing in the lower court proceedings.
3. Whether the applicant's delay in filing notice of appeal constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.

Orders

• Leave to appeal denied.
• Extension of time to file memorandum of appeal denied.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (17)

• Workers Compensation Act Cap 225 s.16(1)
• Workers Compensation Act Cap 225 s.16(3)
• Workers Compensation Act Cap 225 s.16(5)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.96
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.79(1)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 51 Rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 76 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 21 Rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 21 Rule 5
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 44

Cases cited (6)

• Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373
• Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
• The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam Vs the Chairman Bunju Village Government & Others quoted in Gideon Mosa Onchwati vs Kenya Oil Co. Ltd & Another [2017] eKLR
• Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v The Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
• Hajji Mohamed Nyanzi v Ali Segane [1992-1993] HCB 21
• Priscilla Wambi Mischek v Samuel Thata and Others (CA No. 30 of 1976)

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