Uganda Co-operative Transport Union v Roko Construction Limited (Civil Application 12 of 1997)

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

Under the proviso to Rule 99 of the Supreme Court Rules, an application to restore an appeal dismissed for non-appearance must be determined by the full court that dismissed it, not a single judge; the single judge's restoration order was therefore set aside. Late arrival caused by a tyre puncture, where counsel and clients set out knowing the court's start time and travelled without a spare tyre, did not amount to sufficient cause. Although the restoration application was filed outside the thirty-day limit, the delay flowed from the Court's own error in entertaining the applicant's earlier prompt application before a single judge; applying Article 126(2)(e), the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 1(f) to restore the appeal in the interests of justice.

Outcome

Application allowed; the single judge's restoration order was set aside and the dismissed appeal was restored for hearing on the merits before the full court.

Facts

An appeal (recorded in the Court's internal memo as Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1995) was listed before the Supreme Court for hearing on 5 December 1996. Neither the appellant nor its representative appeared when the appeal was called, and it was dismissed for want of prosecution. On the same day the applicant instituted Civil Application No. 26 of 1996 seeking restoration. Through an error of the Court that application was cause-listed and heard by a single judge (Karokora, J.S.C.), who on 11 December 1996 ordered restoration. The Registrar later realised the application ought to have gone before a full bench under the proviso to Rule 99 and removed the appeal from the cause list, leaving the appeal dismissed. The applicant then filed the present application. Its representatives explained their absence on the hearing date by a puncture suffered en route after leaving chambers at about 9.10 a.m. The applicant asserted that over 100,000,000 shillings of public funds were at stake.

Issues

1. Whether the order of the single judge restoring the dismissed appeal should be set aside as having been made without jurisdiction.
2. Whether the appellant's late arrival in court, due to a vehicle puncture, constituted sufficient cause for failing to appear when the appeal was called on for hearing.
3. Whether the application for restoration was time-barred under Rule 99(3) for being filed outside thirty days of the decision dismissing the appeal.
4. Whether the dismissed appeal should be restored for hearing on the merits.

Orders

• The order of the single judge dated 11 December 1996 restoring the appeal is set aside.
• The application is allowed.
• Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1995 is restored for hearing on the merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(f)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.43(e)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.52(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.99(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.99(3)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• David Nsubuga and 3 Others v Maggret Kamuje (Civil Application No.31 of 1997)

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