Download

Uganda Judgment

Industrial Court of Uganda

Dr. Kisembo v Atorney General (Miscellaneous Application 160 of 2023) [2024] UGIC 10 (31 May 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that both the applicant and his counsel provided credible explanations for their nonappearance on the hearing date: the applicant was critically ill and under medical care, while counsel was bereaved, having lost a close family member the day before. The court accepted that these circumstances constituted sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The absence of any reply or challenge from the respondent further supported the applicant's position. The court concluded that the order dismissing Labour Dispute Claim Number 249 of 2014 should be set aside and the matter reinstated for hearing, emphasizing the need to resolve the dispute on its merits given its long pendency since 2014.

Court disposition

Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated for hearing.

Orders

  • The order of dismissal of Labour Dispute Claim Number 249 of 2014 is set aside.
  • The matter is fixed for hearing on the 13th of November 2024 at 11:30 a.m.

02

Material facts

Parties

Dr. Deogratius Kisembo

Applicant Counsel: Ms. Elizabeth Nampula of Century Advocates

Attorney General

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Mark Muwonge, State Attorney

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Application to Set Aside Dismissal of Suit

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that nonappearance in court was due to the bereavement of counsel, Mr. Kamwesigye, who lost his brother a day before the hearing, and the applicant's own critical illness. Medical and death certificates were attached. Counsel cited Order 9 rule 23(1) CPR and case law to support that unforeseeable situations amount to sufficient cause.
Respondent
The respondent did not file any affidavits in reply and did not submit arguments.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 9 Rule 22 Civil Procedure Rules; HCMA No. 0009 OF 2017 Eriga Jos Perino vs. Vuzzi Azza Victor & 2 Ors

    A suit dismissed under Order 9 Rule 22 CPR may be reinstated for sufficient cause, which includes mistakes by an advocate, ignorance of procedure, illness of a party, or lapses of counsel or party.

  2. 02

    Makasi Paul & 13 Others v. Alfred Mandala & 2 Ors, H.C.M.A 0036 of 2024

    Nonappearance due to unforeseeable situations such as illness or bereavement amounts to sufficient cause for reinstatement.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that both the applicant and his counsel provided credible explanations for their nonappearance on the hearing date: the applicant was critically ill and under medical care, while counsel was bereaved, having lost a close family member the day before. The court accepted that these circumstances constituted sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The absence of any reply or challenge from the respondent further supported the applicant's position. The court concluded that the order dismissing Labour Dispute Claim Number 249 of 2014 should be set aside and the matter reinstated for hearing, emphasizing the need to resolve the dispute on its merits given its long pendency since 2014.

Obiter and limits

  • The matter has resided in this Court since 2014, underscoring the importance of expeditious resolution.
  • The absence of a reply from the respondent was noted by the court.

Court disposition

Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated for hearing.

  • The order of dismissal of Labour Dispute Claim Number 249 of 2014 is set aside.
  • The matter is fixed for hearing on the 13th of November 2024 at 11:30 a.m.

Source and reliance status

Industrial Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Industrial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2024] UGIC 10

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.160 of 2023

*(Arising out of Labour Dispute Reference No. 249 Of 2014)*

DR. DEOGRATIUS KISEMBO:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSUS

ATTORNEY GENERAL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana

Panelists:

Hon. Adrine Namara, Hon. Suzan Nabirye & Hon. Michael Matovu.

Representation:

- *1. Ms. Elizabeth Nampula of Century Advocates for the Applicant* - *2. None for the Respondent*

RULING

Introduction

- [1] By motion, under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 *(from now CPA)* Order 9 Rules 22 and 23 and Order 52 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.l *71-1 (from now CPR),* the Applicant sought an order setting aside the dismissal of LDR 249 of 2014. He asked that costs be in the main cause. In the supporting affidavit, Mr. Andrew Kamwesigye, Advocate, was deposed to having lost a brother on the 26lh day of September 2023, a day before the matter was called for hearing on the 27th of September 2023. He attached a copy of the certificate of cause of death of the late David Tinkunda issued by Nakasero Hospital on the 26lh of September 2023. Mr. Kamwesigye said he was consumed by grief and could not attend Court the following day. Dr. Kisembo was deposed to being critically ill, having diabetes, hypertension, and a blood clot in the leg for which rest was recommended. He said he switched off his phones and was only reached through his wife on the 28th of September 2023, and advised of the dismissal. He attached copies of medical treatment notes from M/S Friends Polyclinic. » - [2] The Respondent did not file any affidavits in reply.

- [3] When the application was called for hearing on the 12lh of March 2024, Ms. Nampula informed the Court that she had spoken to the Respondent's Counsel, who had asked for two weeks to file a reply. We granted timelines for filing replies, rejoinders, and written submissions. The Applicant filed submissions, but the file does not indicate that the Respondent has filed any. - [4] It was submitted for the Applicant that the failure to appear in court was for good or sufficient cause owing to Mr. Kamwesigye's bereavement and the Applicant's illness. Counsel cited Order 9 rule 23(1)CPR and Makasi Paul & 13 Others Alfred Mandala & 2 Ors <sup>1</sup> for the proposition that nonappearance due to unforeseeable situations amounted to sufficient cause.

Analysis and Decision of the Court

- [5] The short question for this Court to determine is whether the applicant has shown good or sufficient cause for setting aside the order of dismissal. The position of the law on an application such as the present one is that a suit dismissed under Order 9 Rule 22 CPR may be reinstated for sufficient cause. Sufficient cause has been defined to relate to mistakes by an advocate, ignorance of procedure, illness of a party, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel or the party.[1](#page-1-0) <sup>2</sup> - [6] From the record of proceedings, when the Matter came before us on the 3rd of May 2023, Ms. Kangume, appearing for the Applicant and holding Mr. Kamwesigye's brief, and Mr. Sam Tusubira, State Attorney, informed us that the parties were trial-ready. We fixed the matter for hearing on the 27th of September 2023. On that day, Mr. Moses Mugisha S. A. appeared for the Respondent. The Applicant and his Counsel were absent, and upon Mr. Mugisha's application, the matter was dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 CPR. The Applicant and his Counsel have explained the reasons fortheir non-appearance. In the circumstances of Counsel Kamwesigye's bereavement and Dr. Kisembo's illness, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been demonstrated. Our order of dismissal of Labour Dispute Claim Number 249 of 2014 is set aside. Because the matter has resided in this Court since 2014, we direct that it is fixed for hearing on the 13th of November 2024 at 11:30 a:m.

It is so ordered.

*Signed fn* Chambers at Kampala this 31st day of May 2024

Anthoi Judge M/abwire Musana, adustrial Court

<sup>1</sup> H. C. M. A 0036 of 2024

<span id="page-1-0"></span><sup>2</sup> Per Mubiru J in HCMA No. 0009 OF 2017 Eriga Jos Perino vs. Vuzzi Azza Victor & 2 Ors

The Panelists agree.

Hon. Adrine Namara

2. Hon. Suzan Nabirye

31st May 2024

9:41 a:m

Appearances:

- 1. Mr. Mark Muwonge, State Attorney, for the Respondent. - 2. Applicant and his Counsel are absent:

Court Clerk: Mr. Samuel Mukiza.

Mr. Muwonge Matter for ruling, and we are ready to receive it.

Court: Ruling delivered in open Court.

Anthony Wabwire Musana, Judge, Industrial Court ny

9:48 a:m

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Makasi Paul & 13 Others v. Alfred Mandala & 2 Ors, H.C.M.A 0036 of 2024

Case cited

HCMA No. 0009 OF 2017 Eriga Jos Perino vs. Vuzzi Azza Victor & 2 Ors

Case cited

Section 98 Civil Procedure Act Cap.71

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 9 Rules 22 and 23 Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 52 Rules 1, 2 and 3 Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.