Download

Uganda Judgment

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Edward Kamana Wesonga v Interim Electral Commission and 2 Others (Election Petition Application No. 36 of 1997) [1999] UGCA 2 (6 January 1999)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant intended to attend court and took all reasonable steps to ascertain the hearing date, relying on information provided by his counsel. The error in the date was due to the counsel's law clerk, and the applicant acted diligently and promptly upon learning of the dismissal. The affidavits, though attacked for inconsistency, were found to be in agreement on the essential fact of communication regarding the hearing date. The court held that it would be unjust to punish the applicant for the negligence of his counsel, especially where the applicant had no control over the actions of his counsel or their staff. The matter being an election petition was also considered to be of public importance. Accordingly, the application for reinstatement of the appeal was allowed.

Court disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No.17 of 1997, dismissed on 15/9/97, is reinstated for hearing.
  • Respondents are awarded costs of this application.

02

Material facts

Parties

Edward Kamana Wesonga

Applicant Counsel: Mr. Olanya

Interim Electoral Commission

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Sam Serwanga

Unnamed Third Respondent

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Matsiko

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Election Petition / Application for Reinstatement of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant, through counsel Mr. Olanya, argued that he had a reasonable cause for not appearing in court on 15/9/97, as he was misled by his counsel's law clerk who gave him the wrong date. Counsel's mistake, however negligent, should not be visited on the client. The application was filed promptly within two days of learning of the dismissal. The case is of public interest as it involves an election petition and should be heard on its merits.
Respondent
Mr. Sam Serwanga for the first and second respondents argued that the application lacked merit due to defective and inconsistent affidavits regarding who telephoned whom about the hearing date, suggesting unreliability. He conceded the matter was of public importance. Mr. Matsiko for the third respondent opposed the application, asserting no reasonable or substantial reason was provided, and that the applicant should bear the consequences of his counsel's negligence. He also attacked the affidavits as inconsistent and unreliable.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Appeal Rules 1996, Rule 99(2)

    An applicant must show sufficient cause for non-attendance when an appeal is called for hearing to succeed under Rule 99(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

  2. 02

    Mary Kyamulabi vs. Ahamada Zorondomu Civil Application No.41 of 1979 (unreported)

    A vigilant litigant should not be punished for the negligence of his counsel over whose actions he has no control.

  3. 03

    National Insurance Corporation vs. Mugenyi & Co. Advocates [1987] HCB 284

    The test for sufficient cause is whether the applicant intended to attend court and did the best he could to attend but in vain.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant intended to attend court and took all reasonable steps to ascertain the hearing date, relying on information provided by his counsel. The error in the date was due to the counsel's law clerk, and the applicant acted diligently and promptly upon learning of the dismissal. The affidavits, though attacked for inconsistency, were found to be in agreement on the essential fact of communication regarding the hearing date. The court held that it would be unjust to punish the applicant for the negligence of his counsel, especially where the applicant had no control over the actions of his counsel or their staff. The matter being an election petition was also considered to be of public importance. Accordingly, the application for reinstatement of the appeal was allowed.

Obiter and limits

  • It is immaterial whether it was counsel who telephoned the applicant or vice versa; what is important is that they communicated about the hearing date.
  • Each case must be considered on its own merits when determining whether counsel's negligence should be visited on the client.
  • The promptness of the applicant in filing the application after learning of the dismissal is evidence of diligence.
  • Election petitions are matters of public importance, especially to the concerned constituency.

Court disposition

application allowed

  • Civil Appeal No.17 of 1997, dismissed on 15/9/97, is reinstated for hearing.
  • Respondents are awarded costs of this application.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal 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

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Judgment

[1999] UGCA 2

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f199\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f200\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f202\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f203\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f204\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f205\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f206\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f207\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph

Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid12807953 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid1056190 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid1056190 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl

\rsid12292\rsid147964\rsid263824\rsid483953\rsid532800\rsid542833\rsid656068\rsid853000\rsid924932\rsid1056190\rsid1212221\rsid1263153\rsid1328200 \rsid1589256\rsid1597739\rsid1769736\rsid1979034\rsid1985355\rsid2651407\rsid2753621\rsid2833257\rsid2891500\rsid3035935\rsid3163095\rsid3436095\rsid3891542\rsid4004402\rsid4013346\rsid4081474\rsid4154319\rsid4606034\rsid4615111\rsid4804988\rsid4812412 \rsid4816222\rsid4936141\rsid4994645\rsid5133152\rsid5249105\rsid5257113\rsid5338672\rsid5393925\rsid5510309\rsid5529574\rsid5578182\rsid5599792\rsid5925591\rsid6168920\rsid6227913\rsid6298534\rsid6357996\rsid6498727\rsid6761646\rsid6774612\rsid7235957 \rsid7297041\rsid7427735\rsid7555992\rsid7699176\rsid7878088\rsid8001677\rsid8538801\rsid8545157\rsid8857076\rsid8875848\rsid9138396\rsid9583136\rsid9729420\rsid9908807\rsid10119127\rsid10167632\rsid10384870\rsid10438333\rsid10438669\rsid10517635 \rsid10564061\rsid10569595\rsid10693564\rsid10703749\rsid10825639\rsid10975670\rsid11025202\rsid11078177\rsid11350863\rsid11555040\rsid11563786\rsid11691652\rsid11930287\rsid12526284\rsid12662586\rsid12718503\rsid12742138\rsid12807953\rsid13255604 \rsid13435762\rsid13466614\rsid13512610\rsid13640487\rsid13704567\rsid13720995\rsid13914955\rsid14043846\rsid14428627\rsid14493501\rsid14626845\rsid14839716\rsid14942689\rsid14962999\rsid15430543\rsid15688051\rsid15739412\rsid15798275\rsid15818385 \rsid15882927\rsid15884479\rsid15952220\rsid16061834\rsid16084859\rsid16150457\rsid16265927\rsid16321832\rsid16385006\rsid16581033\rsid16604061\rsid16667850\rsid16673595}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA } {\author Wor. Jessica chemeri}{\operator Wor. Jessica chemeri}{\creatim\yr2008\mo9\dy24\hr10\min26}{\revtim\yr2008\mo9\dy24\hr12\min3}{\version4}{\edmins27}{\nofpages4}{\nofwords1112}{\nofchars6345}{\nofcharsws7443}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale110\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot12807953\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1056190 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1056190 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1056190 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1056190 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid16385006\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6173005 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid1056190 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1056190 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid1056190 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid1056190 {\insrsid1056190 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid1056190 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \line IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \line ELECTION}{\ul\insrsid1056190 PETITION APPLICATION NO.36/97 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid1056190 {\ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 CORAM: }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO, JA. \line }{\insrsid1056190 \par }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 EDWARD KAMANA WESONGA ::::::::::::.::::::: ::: PETITIONER \line - VERSUS - \line INTERIM ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2 OTHERS :: ::: RESPONDENT}{\insrsid1056190 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid15739412 {\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 }{\ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 RULING OF C. M. KATO, J. A. (Single Judge) }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 \line This is an application for the reinstatement of Civi l Appeal No.17 of 1997 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15/9/97. The application is by a notice of motion dated 17/9/97. It is supported by a total of 4 affidavits all dated 17/9/97. It was lodged under the provisions of Rules 55 and 99(2) o f Court of Appeal Rules 1996. There were two affidavits in reply. There is only one ground upon which this application is based, namely that the applicant and his counsel could not attend court on 15/9/97 because the counsel\rquote s law clerk had mistakenly given them a wrong date of 17/9/97. \line It is worth noting that on 30/7/98 this same application was argued before a panel of 3 judges who eventually discovered that the application was supposed to be handled by a single judge and the parties were accordingly advised. \line }{\insrsid1056190

\par }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 Mr. Olanya learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had a reasonable cause for not appearing in court }{\insrsid1056190 o}{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 n 15/9/97 as he was misled by his counsel. It was his argument that counsel\rquote s mistake however negligent should not be visited on a client. In support of this argument he cited: }{\ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 Ahamada B. Zirondomu vs. Mary Kyamulabi [19751 HCB 337, Kyobe Senyange vs. Naks Ltd. [19801 HCB 31 and National Insurance Corporation vs. Mugenyi & Co. Advocates, [19871 FICB 28. }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 He further argued tha t the applicant filed this application within only two days on learning that his appeal had been dismissed. He also submitted that the case was of public interest as it involved an election petition and that the appeal should be heard on its merits. \line On hi s part Mr. Sam Serwanga who appeared for the first and second respondents argued that the application lacked merit as the affidavits supporting it were defective because in one affidavit it was being said that it was the applicant who telephoned the chamb e rs of his counsel to find out about the hearing date and in another affidavit it was being said that it was the counsel who telephoned the applicant. According to him the affidavits were telling lies.

He however conceded that the matter was of some public importance. \line Mr. Matsiko who represented the third respondent strongly opposed the application on the ground that no reasonable or substantial reason had been put forward by the applicant in support of his application. He submitted that the applicant\rquote s cou nsel was greatly negligent in not appearing in court on 15/9/97 and his negligence should be visited on the applicant. Mr. Matsiko also attacked the affidavits in support of the application as being inconsistent on the issue of who telephoned who. In h is view such affidavits were unreliable and useless and therefore should be ignored all together. \line }{\insrsid1056190 \par }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 Rule 99(2) of the Rules of this court upon which this application is based reads as follows:}{\insrsid1056190 - \par }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 \'9399(2) Where an appeal has been dismissed under subrule (1) or any cross-appeal heard under that subrule has been allowed, the appellant may apply to the Court to restore the appeal for hearing or to re-hear the cross-appeal, if he or she can show that he or she was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing wh en the appeal was called on for hearing.\'94 \line }{\insrsid1056190 \par }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 Subrule (2) above must, however, be read together with subrule (5) of the

same rule 99. \line In order for an applicant to succeed under rule 99(2) he must satisfy the court that he or she was prevented by sufficient ca use from attending court when the appeal was called for hearing. What constitutes sufficient cause depends on facts of each individual case. The test to be applied, however, is whether the applicant intended to attend court and did the best he could to at tend but in vain (see: }{\ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 National Insurance Corporation vs. Mugenyi and Co. Advocates }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 [J9871 }{\ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 HCB 284. }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 \line In the case before me now, the applicant swore an affidavit in which he said that he contacted the chambers of his counsel on 12/9/97 to ascertain as to when his appeal would be coming up for hearing so that he could attend court. His counsel assured him that the case was coming up on }{\b\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 17/9/97 }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 and indeed on that day he came to court only to find that his appeal had been dismissed on 15/9/97. His affidavit is supported by that of his former counsel Mr. Augustine Lubega Matovu and that of Fred Semugenyi. The two counsel who appeared for the three

respondents attacked these affidavits on the ground that they were contradictory as to who telephoned who. I find this attack baseless because all the three affidavits are in agreement that on 12/9/97 the applicant was in telephone contact with the chambe r s of his former counsel Mr. Lubega Matovu whereby he was positively informed his appeal was scheduled to be heard on 17/9/97. It is immaterial whether it was Mr. Lubega Matovu who telephoned him or it was he who telephoned Mr. Lubega Matovu; what is impor tant is that they talked on telephone on 12/9/97 about the hearing date of the appeal. \line I am satisfied that the applicant intended to attend court and did all in his power to be present when his appeal was supposed to come up for hearing but he was let down by his counsel who gave him the wrong date. \line There is, however, one pertinent question which must be answered. The question is whether the applicant should be made to suffer because of mistakes made in the chambers of his former counsel. A similar question arose in the case of: }{ \ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 Mary Kyamulabi vs. Ahamada Zorondomu Civil application No.41 of 1979 }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 (unreported) where Nyamuchoncho, J. A. (as he was) sitting as a single judge in the then Court of Appeal for Uganda had this to say on the matter: \line }{\insrsid1056190 \par

}{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 \'93It would indeed be very deplorable for a vigilant litigant to be punished by refusing him to appeal because of the negligence of his counsel over whose actions he has no control.\'94 \line }{\insrsid1056190 \par }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 In my view that statement represents the correct principle of the law, although each c ase must be considered on its own merits. In the instant case I feel the applicant should not be punished for what happened between his counsel and the counsel\rquote s clerk. The applicant had no control over their actions. He did all in his power to ascertain t he hearing date and he was wrongly assured by his counsel that it was 17/9/97. Considering all the facts surrounding this application, the applicant did not only act diligently but he also acted promptly by filing this application within two days from the date of the dismissal of the appeal. \line As regards to the issue of whether the matter is of public interest, there is no doubt that this being an election petition it is obviously a matter of public importance, at least as far as the people in the concerned constituency are concerned. It has to be appreciated that Mr. Sam Serwanga who appeared for the first and second respondents in this application conceded that this was a matter of public importance. \line In the result this application is

allowed. It is hereby ordered that Civil Appeal No.17 of }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid1056190 1997 }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 which was dismissed by this court on 15/9/97 be reinstated for hearing. As counsel for the applicant concedes to costs, the respondents will get the costs of this application. \line }{\insrsid1056190 \par }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 Dated at Kampala this }{\insrsid1056190 7}{\super\insrsid1056190\charrsid1056190 th}{\insrsid1056190 day of January 1999}{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 \line }{\ul\insrsid1056190 C. M. KATO \par }{\ul\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 JUSTICE OF APPEAL }{\insrsid12807953\charrsid15739412 \line \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15739412 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid10825639\charrsid15739412 \par }}

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.

Ahamada B. Zirondomu vs. Mary Kyamulabi [1975] HCB 337

Case cited

Kyobe Senyange vs. Naks Ltd. [1980] HCB 31

Case cited

National Insurance Corporation vs. Mugenyi & Co. Advocates [1987] HCB 284

Case cited

Mary Kyamulabi vs. Ahamada Zorondomu Civil Application No.41 of 1979 (unreported)

Case cited

Court of Appeal Rules 1996, Rule 55

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Court of Appeal Rules 1996, Rule 99(2)

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.