Share
Dr. Kisembo v Atorney General (Miscellaneous Application 160 of 2023) [2024] UGIC 10 (31 May 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGIC 10
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Wabwire Musana, J, Namara, Panel Member, Nabirye, Matovu
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 160 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Wabwire Musana, J, Namara, Panel Member, Nabirye, Matovu
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 160 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 AdvocatesAttorney General
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Mark Muwonge, State Attorney03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application to Set Aside Dismissal of Suit
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has shown good or sufficient cause for setting aside the order of dismissal.
- 02
Whether illness of a party and bereavement of counsel constitute sufficient cause for nonappearance.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Industrial Court of Uganda
Judgment

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
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.