Wakilii

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council and Another v Basssajjabalaba and 3 Others (Civil Revision 3 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 18 · 2023 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revision application from Chief Magistrate's Court ex-parte interim orders and contempt proceedings
Decision
Revision allowed; ex-parte orders revised and set aside; related applications declared invalid and struck off

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 High Court allowed the revision application, finding that the Chief Magistrate exercised jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity by granting ex-parte interim orders without evidence, without service on the applicants, and arising from applications that were not properly dated, signed or sealed. The court revised and set aside the ex-parte proceedings and orders in MA No. 006 of 2023, and declared that MC No. 003 of 2023 (contempt), MA No. 005 of 2023 (temporary injunction) and MA No. 006 of 2023 (interim orders) were invalid and struck them off the record.

Outcome

Revision allowed; ex-parte orders revised and set aside; related applications declared invalid and struck off

Facts

The 1st Respondent was nominated to contest for Chairperson of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council with elections scheduled for 3 December 2022. On 1 December 2022, he was informed he was ineligible and summoned to appear before the Electoral Commission on 2 December 2022. Instead of appearing, he filed MC No. 142 of 2022 seeking to halt the summons and proceed with elections. The Chief Magistrate heard an ex-parte oral application and granted an interim order directing elections to proceed on 3 December 2022. The order was to last three days. Elections were conducted on 3 December 2022. On 5 December 2022, the 1st Respondent withdrew MC No. 142 of 2022. On 4 January 2023, the Respondents filed MC No. 003 of 2023 for contempt and MA No. 006 of 2023 for interim orders. On 10 January 2023, the Chief Magistrate heard MA No. 006 of 2023 ex-parte and granted an interim order restraining the Applicants from carrying out any functions of the UMSC. The Applicants were never served with court process in any of these proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents' failure to file affidavits in reply constitutes an admission of the facts in the Applicants' affidavit.
  2. Whether Counsel Aturinda Majda contravened regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations by swearing the affidavit in support of the application.
  3. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate exercised jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity when he granted ex-parte interim orders in MC No. 142 of 2022 without service on the Applicants.
  4. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain MC No. 142 of 2022.
  5. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate exercised jurisdiction illegally when he granted ex-parte interim orders in MA No. 006 of 2023 arising from an invalidly filed application.
  6. Whether MC No. 003 of 2023 for contempt of court can stand after the withdrawal of the foundational suit MC No. 142 of 2022.

Orders

  • The learned trial Chief Magistrate at Mengo Court illegally and irregularly exercised his jurisdiction when he granted ex-parte interim orders in MC No. 0142 of 2022 and in MA No. 006 of 2023.
  • The ex-parte proceedings, ruling and orders in Misc. Application No. 006 of 2023 be and are hereby revised and set aside.
  • It is hereby declared that MA No. 003 of 2023 for contempt of court, MA No. 005 of 2023 for temporary injunction and MA No. 006 of 2023 for interim orders are not valid applications before court and are hereby struck off the court record.
  • The Respondents pay costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Requirements for Grant of Ex-Parte Interim Orders
An applicant for interim orders must adduce evidence showing urgency and that irreparable injury will result if the order is not granted. A court cannot entertain an oral application for interim orders without a formal application and evidence before it. Granting interim orders on oral submission alone constitutes exercising jurisdiction with material irregularity.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Natural Justice and Audi Alteram Partem
It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that each party must have reasonable notice of the case to meet and be given an opportunity to state their case. Where a period of six days elapses between filing and hearing of an application, that period is sufficient for service, and proceeding ex-parte without evidence of service or valid reason for non-service constitutes exercising jurisdiction with material irregularity.
Civil Procedure — Validity of Applications — Dating, Signing and Sealing Requirements
An application is by its nature a summons issued by court requiring the respondent to attend court. It becomes valid only when it has been given a date, signed and sealed. An application that is neither dated, signed nor sealed as required by Order 5 rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules is not valid, and orders issued pursuant to such an invalid application are a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements Required to Prove Contempt
To prove contempt of court, the complainant must establish four elements: (i) existence of a lawful order; (ii) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; (iii) the potential contemnor's ability to comply; and (iv) the potential contemnor's failure to comply. Where the foundational order was arrived at illegally and irregularly, there is no lawful order in existence, and contempt proceedings cannot stand.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Suits — Effect on Pending Applications
Upon withdrawal of a main suit, all applications and orders arising therefrom collapse with the withdrawal. Where a suit is withdrawn and the interim orders issued in that suit have lapsed by their own terms, contempt proceedings based on alleged violation of those orders have no foundation and cannot stand.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — When Counsel May Depose
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations does not prevent an advocate from giving evidence verbally or by affidavit on formal or non-contentious matters in which the advocate acts or appears. Where an advocate's affidavit contains only a narration of court proceedings that form part of the court record before the reviewing court, the evidence is non-contentious and the advocate does not contravene regulation 9.
Civil Procedure — Failure to File Reply — Effect on Uncontroverted Facts
Where a party is served with an application and affidavit in support but fails to file an affidavit in reply, the presumption is that the facts sworn to in the affidavit in support are admitted and accepted. This principle applies where there is proof that the party's lawyers were served and the application was one requiring reply affidavits.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (22)

  • Shelton Okabo v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 51 of 1992)
  • Energo Projekt v Brigadier Kasirye Gwanga and Another (HCMA No. 558 of 2009)
  • Wadri and 4 Others v Dranilla (Civil Revision Cause No. 7 of 2019)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Electro-Maxx Uganda Limited v Oryx Oil Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 251 of 2020)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates (SCCA No. 35 of 1994)
  • Geofrey Gatete & Anor - v- William Kyobe
  • Kessington Africa Ltd -v- Pankaj Kumar Shar & Anor
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Buyinza John (MC No. 33 of 2018)
  • Kamurasi Charles v Accord Properties and Another (SCCA No. 3 of 1996)
  • Specioza Nassuna v Kampala City Council (HCCS No. 274 of 1993)
  • Asa Nabirye and Others v Isiko Paul (HCCA No. 062 of 2016)
  • Sentamu Jamilu and 2 Others v Sekalawa (Revision Cause No. 21 of 2018)
  • Amir Khan v Sheo Baksh Singh (1885) II C.A. 16, A 237
  • Jane Ssempebwa v Ndibalekera Magdalene (HCMA No. 176 of 2019)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER
  • Kabale University v Henry Rwaganika and Another (CC Appeal No. 007 of 2016)
  • Wildlife Lodge Ltd. -v- County Council of Narok cited in Kitokyo Wilber William -v- John Kagwa HCMA No. 278 of 2019
  • Attorney General v Male Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka (HCMA No. 843 of 2021)
  • Giuliano Gariggio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)
  • Hussein Badda v Iganga District Land Board and Others (MA No. 479 of 2011)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council and Another v Basssajjabalaba and 3 Others (Civil Revision 3 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 18 (14 February 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.