THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL COURT)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 726 OF 2011
(ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2011)
(ARISING FROM H.C.C.S. NO. 497 OF 2004)
1.HUSSEIN NSUBUGA MPOME
2. BABI STEVEN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANTS
VERSUS
ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE
GLADYS NDAGIRE FAAKA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS
BEFORE THE HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN OBURA
RULING
This application was brought under Order 9 rule 23 and Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The applicants are seeking for orders that the
dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2011 be set aside and the
application restored for hearing on merit and costs of this application be provided
for.
1
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Denis Byaruhanga
counsel for the applicants on 13th December 2011 and a further affidavit in
support sworn by Mr. Steven Babi, the 2nd applicant on the same day.
The brief grounds of this application as contained in the Notice of Motion and
both affidavits in support are that when Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2011
was called on for hearing on 7th December 2011, counsel for the applicants was
appearing before Hon. Justice Madrama in HCCS No. 117 of 2008, Xavier
Tibenderana v Attorney General which had been called first. Further that the
applicants whom counsel had called and informed to be present in court to stand
over the matter when it was called did not understand counsel’s instructions and
instead remained waiting for him outside Justice Madrama’s court and
consequently, the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.
An affidavit in opposition of this application was sworn by Ms. Namugenyi Harriet
Makumbi one of the administrators of the estate of the late Gladys Ndagire Faaka
(respondents) on 20th January 2012. She deposed that she was advised by their
lawyer that if counsel for the applicants had wanted Miscellaneous Application
No. 24 of 2011 to be stood over on the day it was dismissed, the proper step to
take would have been to liaise with counsel for the respondents who were
present at the court. Further that the applicants and their counsels had on many
occasions acted without diligence, failed to honour their word to court, defied
court orders and employed diverse tactics to delay or hold back disposal of the
matter in issue. She concluded that the attitude of the applicants and their
counsels towards the matter before the court was regrettable, appalling,
deplorable, and vicious and should not be given a new lease of life.
2
At the hearing of this application, the applicants were represented by Mr. Denis
Byaruhanga and the respondents by Mr. Peter Allan Musoke. Mr. Byaruhanga in
his brief submission relied on the grounds stated in the affidavits in support and
submitted that when Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2011 came up for
hearing and was dismissed for want of prosecution, he had another matter before
Justice Madrama which had been called first. Further that he had called the
applicants and informed them to be present and stand over the matter when it
was called. He contended that he had also found counsel for the respondents
outside court and informed him that his clients were coming to have the matter
stood over. He submitted that his clients did not understand his instructions so
they stood outside Justice Madrama’s court waiting for him and by the time he
finalized the case he was conducting the matter had already been dismissed for
want of prosecution.
He concluded that those grounds constituted sufficient cause and prayed that this
application be allowed and costs be in the cause.
Mr. Musoke for the respondents based his submission on the affidavit in
opposition to this application. He first of all refuted counsel for the applicants’
contention that he had informed counsel for the respondents that his clients
would be coming to have the matter stood over. He argued that counsel was just
taking advantage of the absence of Senior Counsel Mr. G. S. Lule to make that
allegation. He contended that the further affidavit in support was very suspicious
as it sworn by Mr. Babi Stephen who had never appeared in this court.
He also contended that Mr. Babi in paragraph 3 of his affidavit did not associate
himself with the contents of paragraph 4 of Mr. Byaruhanga’s affidavit where he
3
deposed that his clients did not understand his instructions. He argued that it was
speculative for counsel to tell court that his clients did not understand his
instruction when Mr. Babi one of the clients alleged not to have understood the
instructions did not associate himself with that averment.
As regards the ground of this application, he argued that even if counsel had a
matter before Justice Madrama, the application before this court would have
taken priority because of the seniority of counsel for the respondent Mr. G.S Lule
since the Attorney General was not appearing in person in that other matter.
He referred to what was deposed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit in
opposition and submitted that firstly, the applicants and their counsel had earlier
on 12th September 2011undertaken to take the respondents and their counsel to
where the 2nd applicant laid bedridden before the 7th December 2011 when the
matter came up and was dismissed. Further that the applicants’ counsel did not at
any one time write to counsel for the respondent to inform them of their inability
to do so.
Secondly, he submitted that counsel and his clients have time and again told this
court that they were willing to negotiate with a view of amicable settlement. To
that end, whichever date they proposed the respondents and their counsel
accepted to no avail. He prayed that this application be denied.
Without prejudice to the foregoing submission, counsel submitted that if this
court felt inclined to grant this application then it should be conditional upon a
deposit of Shs. 20,000,000/= in court within a specified period of time. He argued
that the suit property was of a higher value than the Shs. 10,000,000/= it was
4
valued at when it was sold because it was a commercial property located at
Bwaise Trading Centre.
He prayed for costs of the application and that in the event that the application is
dismissed this file be forwarded to the execution division.
Mr.Byaruhanga in a brief rejoinder reiterated his earlier submission that he had
talked to Senior Counsel Mr. G.S Lule about his other matter before Justice
Madrama and informed him that the applicants were on the way to attend court
and have the matter stood over.
On the contention that Mr. Babi Steven did not associate himself with the content
of paragraph 4 of his affidavit, counsel submitted that Mr. Babi Steven associated
himself with paragraph 6 of his affidavit where he had stated that his clients
informed him that they had not understood his instructions.
On the allegations that counsel and his clients had defied court orders, he
submitted that apart from his failure to write to counsel for the respondents to
propose a settlement, the allegation was not true.
He contended that the prayer that if this court was inclined to grant this
application it should be conditional upon deposit of shs.20,000,000= was not
sustainable because this is not an application for stay of execution. He argued
that counsel for the respondent had not shown sufficient grounds to warrant
granting of prayer for Shs. 20,000,000 to be deposited in Court. He observed that
if such orders were to be made in such applications then poor litigants would be
prevented from accessing courts of law.
He reiterated his prayer that this application be granted and costs be in the cause.
5
Order 9 rule 23 under which this application was brought empowers court to
make an order setting aside the dismissal of a suit upon such terms as to costs or
otherwise as the court thinks fit. However, the applicant must first satisfy the
court that there was sufficient cause for non appearance when the suit was called
on for hearing.
Courts have held that sufficient reason must relate to the inability or failure to
take the particular step in time. See Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481 at page 483,
Njagi v Munyiri [1975]EA 179 at page 180 and Rosette Kizito v Administrator
General and Others [Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9/86 reported in
Kampala Law Report Volume 5 of 1993 at page 4].
The Supreme Court in Nicholas Roussos vs Gulamhussein Habib Virani &
Another, Civil Appeal No.9 of 1993 (SC) (unreported), held that some of the
grounds or circumstances which may amount to sufficient cause include mistake
b y an advocate though negligent, ignorance of procedure by an unrepresented
defendant and illness by a party.
In National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987]
HCB 28 the Court of Appeal held that;
“The main test for reinstatement of a suit was whether the applicant
honestly intended to attend the hearing and did his best to do so.
Two other tests were namely the nature of the case and whether
there was a prima facie defence to that case….” (Emphasis added).
That decision was followed by in Nakiride v Hotel International Ltd [1987] HCB 85
where it was held that;
6
“In considering whether there was sufficient cause why counsel for
the applicant did not appear in Court on the date the application was
dismissed, the test to be applied in cases of that nature was
whether under the circumstances the party applying honestly
intended to be present at the hearing and did his best to attend. It
was also important for the litigant to show diligence in the
matter…” (Emphasis added).
The only issue for determination in this application is whether the applicants have
shown sufficient cause to warrant grant of this application. Counsel for the
applicants’ submitted that the fact that he was handling another matter before
another judge and the applicants’ failure to appear and have the matter stood
over because they did not understand his instructions was sufficient cause.
However, counsel for the respondents submitted that if indeed counsel for the
applicants wanted to have this matter stood over he would have informed
counsel for the respondents accordingly. He also observed that the applicants and
their counsel had conducted themselves in a manner that delayed disposal of the
ill-fated application.
I agree with counsel’s submission and observation. Counsel for the applicants
ought to have adopted the best practice of informing the opposite counsel to
stand over the matter if he had genuine reasons for doing so. His failure to use
that professional and prudent way of conducting court business yielded the result
it did.
7
I also find it irresponsible for counsel to fix two cases in different courts at the
same time. This practice must be discouraged because in most cases it leads to
unwarranted adjournments. I am of the view that if courts were to hold that
counsel’s choice to appear in one court in preference to another without making
a proper arrangement for the other matter to be stood over is sufficient cause for
setting aside a dismissal of a suitor an application like this one, it would amount
to condoning irresponsible conduct of some advocates. I reckon this would also
be thoroughly abused just the way the principle that mistake of counsel should
not be visited on litigants is currently being abused by some advocates who
deliberately fail to take the necessary actions.
For the above reason, I am not quite convinced that the ground for this
application is sufficient cause. However, just in case I am wrong, before I make
my final conclusion on the fate of this application, I will also take into account the
nature of the case being one of the tests stated in National Insurance
Corporation v Mugenyi and Company Advocates (supra). Similarly, I will review
the history of this case to assess the diligence of the applicants in view of the
decision in Nakiride v Hotel International Ltd (supra) which I find persuasive. The
conclusion in the decision in that case was that it was also important for the
litigant to show diligence in the matter.
I will start with the history of this case which is as follows. Miscellaneous
Application No. 24 of 2011 was filed on the 13th January 2011 and fixed for
hearing on 14th March 2011. The application was received by one Nabende
Jonathan a clerk to the applicants’ counsel on the 22nd February 2011 (as per the
8
acknowledgment on the court copy of the notice of motion). I believe it was
received for onward service on the respondents.
There is no affidavit of service on record to show when this application was
actually served on the respondents but according to the letter of from the
respondent’s counsel dated 18th March 2011, by then the respondents had not
yet been served. This letter was written after the hearing date of 14th March 2011
which turned out to be a day for mayoral election so court did not sit. I believe
the respondents could have been served after 18th March 2011 and that is why an
affidavit in opposition to that application was filed on 31st March 2011.
On 6th June 2011, the matter came before me for hearing and Mr. Byaruhanga
Denis informed court that he was holding brief for Mr. Obed Mwebesa who was
handling an election petition in Mbarara before Justice Vincent Zehurikize. He
stated that he was ill-prepared to handle the application that day and requested
that if he was given a short adjournment he would be able to proceed on the next
hearing date.
Counsel for the respondents opposed the application for adjournment and
submitted that there was need to schedule that application and call oral evidence
in view of the fact that fraud was alleged. This court was inclined to grant an
adjournment since counsel for the applicants could not respond to the submission
there and then. The matter was adjourned to 27th June 2011 to enable counsel for
the plaintiff to prepare a response.
On the 27th June 2011 the matter could not proceed because this court had an
abrupt important meeting to attend so it was adjourned to 8th July 2011. On that
day of adjourned hearing, counsel for the applicants in his brief response to the
9
submission of counsel for the respondent agreed with the submission of counsel
for the respondents that the application be set down for a full hearing where oral
evidence would be called. He then prayed for an adjournment on the ground that
he had just taken over conduct of the case and due to his engagement in the
election petitions he had not contacted his clients to explore an amicable
settlement of the dispute between the parties.
Counsel for the respondents conceded to that prayer and by consent the matter
was adjourned to 7th September 2011 for scheduling. Both counsels were directed
to file a joint scheduling memorandum.
On 7th September 2011, when the application was called on for scheduling,
counsel for the applicants again applied for an adjournment on the ground that
he was not feeling well. The joint scheduling memorandum had not even been
filed. Senior Counsel Mr. G.S. Lule for the respondents conceded to the prayer for
adjournment on the ground that the reason was genuine. Court then granted a
very short adjournment to 12th September 2011 and directed the parties to file a
joint scheduling memorandum by 9th September 2011.
On 12th September 2011, counsel for the applicants reported that the 2nd
applicant Mr. Babi Steven was indisposed and informed court that a one Mr.
Lawrence Mwanga who was in possession of the suit land was in court and
wished to be made a party to the application. Counsel intimated that he would
seek an adjournment to enable him make a formal application to add Mr.
Mwanga as a party to the application.
Counsel for the respondents pointed out that there was no need to make a formal
application to add Mr. Mwanga. He encouraged counsel for the applicants to
10
make an oral application which he would not oppose because he had no objection
to Mr. Mwanga being added as a party. Counsel for the respondents also raised
issues to do with Mr. Steven Babi’s existence and submitted that his clients
suspected that he was a fictitious person and that suspicion was strengthened by
the fact that Mr. Babi had never appeared in court.
It was contended by counsel for the applicants that Mr. Mwanga knew the whereabout of Mr. Babi and on that basis court suggested that Mr. Mwanga should take
the respondents and one of the lawyers in their counsel’s chamber to the place
where Mr. Babi was. Both counsels agreed with that proposal and 7th October
2011 was set as the date for locating Mr. Babi so that the suspicion could be put
to rest. Counsel for the applicants was to coordinate that mission.
The parties and their counsels also expressed willingness to hold discussions with
a view of reaching an amicable settlement. The matter was then adjourned to 20th
October 2011 for mention so as to enable the parties locate Mr. Babi and hold
discussions.
On 20th October 2011 I was indisposed so the matter could not be mentioned. The
matter was fixed for 7th December 2011 and a hearing notice was served on
counsel for the applicants by counsel for the respondents as per the affidavit of
service sworn by a clerk from that law firm.
On 7th December 2011 when the matter was called on, counsel for the applicants
and his clients were absent. Counsel for the respondents reported that the
applicants and their counsel had not complied with any of the directives given by
this court following their own undertakings. He referred court to a letter he had
written to counsel for the applicants on 10th November 2011 to remind them
11
about the need to comply with the directives before the next hearing date. There
was no response by counsel for the applicants and no action was taken.
Counsel then submitted that by that conduct, it would appear that the applicants
had no interest in pursuing that application. He prayed that the application be
dismissed with costs. This court granted that prayer after taking into account the
history of that application and the conduct of the applicants and their counsels as
highlighted above.
The fact that the applicants and their counsel did not appear on the day the
application was dismissed was therefore no surprise to this court because of their
previous conduct as seen from the checkered history of this case. This same court
is now being asked to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the application. What
guarantee does this court have that the same history will not repeat itself and the
matter will continue clogging the system contrary to the objective of establishing
the Commercial Division of the High Court?
According to direction 2 (2) of the Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice)
Directions S.I. Constitutional 6, the Commercial Court was established “to deliver
to the commercial community an efficient, expeditious and cost effective mode of
adjudicating disputes that affect directly and significantly the economic,
commercial and financial life of Uganda”. (Emphasis added).
In order to achieve that objective court as well as both the litigants and their
counsels have a big role to play. This court takes very serious view of counsels
who file cases and keep seeking adjournments without looking at the cost
implications and the wastage of court’s and the other party’s precious time. If there
12
are to be any meaningful effort geared towards fighting the monster called case
backlog such conduct should be least tolerated.
I bet that if the ill-fated application was not dismissed for non appearance of the
applicants and their counsel, it would have still been dismissed at a later stage
under direction 7 of the Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions S.I.
Constitutional 6. It was just a matter of time before this court’s patience would run
out.
I now turn to consider the nature of this case. I have looked at the prayers in
Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2011 as well as the proceedings in
Miscellaneous Application No. 462 of 2010 against the background of Civil Suit
No. 497 of 2004 from which they arise. Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2011
sought for orders that the ex parte decree obtained against the applicant in
Miscellaneous Application No. 462 of 2010 be set aside/reviewed and costs of the
application be provided for.
The grounds of that application were firstly, that counsel for the respondents
(current applicants) by oversight recorded a wrong date and as such when the
matter was called the application proceeded when the respondent was not
represented. Secondly, that the second applicant did not have notice of the
application and thirdly, that there was an error on the face of the record as court
was misled to set aside the decree of court in H.C.C.S No. 497 of 2004 which was
not possible.
A review of the records in Miscellaneous Application No. 462 of 2010 revealed
that the application was filed by the current respondents on the 10th August 2010
and it was fixed for hearing on 8th September 2010. The affidavit of service of the
13
notice of motion on record sworn by Mr. Ssebulime Willy a law clerk in the firm of
M/S Godfrey.S. Lule Advocates on 6th September 2010 indicated that Mr.
Mwebesa of M/S Niwagaba, Mwebesa & Co. Advocates declined to receive
service on behalf of the 1st applicant and directed the clerk to Mr. Hussein
Nsubuga Mpombe’s home so that he could effect service on him directly.
According to that affidavit, the clerk went to Mr. Mpombe’s home and found his
daughter who received service on his behalf. On the day of hearing of that
application, Ms. Wanyama Sheila appeared and informed court that she was
holding brief for Mr. Obed Mwebesa for the respondent. She sought an
adjournment and it was granted. The matter was adjourned to 25th October 2010.
I wish to note that counsel for the respondents had not even filed an affidavit in
reply or notice of instructions in light of the fact that he had earlier declined to
receive service on behalf of the respondents.
For some reason which was not recorded, it appears the application was not
heard on 25th October 2010 but a hearing notice for 8th November 2010 was
issued by the Registrar on that same day.
On 8th November 2010, Senior Counsel Mr. G.S. Lule appeared for the applicants
and informed court that he could not see the respondent in court and yet he had
been served through his daughter who signed on his behalf on 27th October 2010.
He observed that counsel for the respondent had neither put in any appearance
nor made any presentation although at one time a lawyer held brief for him. He
prayed that the matter proceed ex parte and he was allowed to do so. I believe
court must have allowed him to proceed ex parte after confirming that service
was effected as stated.
14
Court then heard the submissions of counsel for the applicants and granted the
application with orders that:“It is only fair that the taxation of costs proceedings and ruling in
H.C.C.S No. 496 of 2004 be reviewed being a nullity; the execution
proceeding are also reviewed by stay and costs of the application
granted to the applicant”.
The ill-fated Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2011 that is sought to be
reinstated by this application was seeking for orders to set aside the above
orders.
The main suit from which all these applications arise was filed by the late Gladys
Ndagire and a one Sebwaami Henry her son against Mr. Nsubuga Mpombe
Hussein on 19th July 2004. The suit was heard and dismissed with costs by Egonda
Ntende, J on 12th December 2005 on the grounds that the 1st plaintiff had not
succeeded in proving the case she had put forward. According to the affidavit in
support of Miscellaneous Application No. 462 of 2010, the 1st plaintiff passed
away in December 2006 and the respondents in this application were granted
letters of administration of her estate on 25th March 2008 (as per the letters of
administration attached to that affidavit as annexture “GNI”).
Meanwhile, counsel for the defendant in H.C.C.S 497 of 2004 filed a bill of costs
on 31st October 2008 and served the taxation hearing notice on M/S Katende
Ssempebwa & Co Advocates who were on record as counsels for the plaintiffs.
According to the affidavit of service sworn by one Omunyokol Joseph a process
server in the firm of M/S Niwagaba & Mwebesa Advocates on 15th December
2008, a secretary in the firm of M/S Katende Ssempebwa & Co Advocates
15
received the notice together with a copy for acknowledgment which was returned
to him after two days without an acknowledgment.
On the basis of that affidavit, the taxation hearing proceeded ex parte and the bill
of costs was taxed and allowed at Shs. 7,106,000/= on 8th October 2009.
It is that taxation proceedings and ruling that was set aside and its execution
stayed in Misc. Application No. 462 of 2010 which was heard ex parte for the
reasons already stated herein above.
I have given this very elaborate background so that this application is looked at in
its context. Contrary to one of the grounds stated in Misc. Application No. 24 of
2011 that there was an error on the face of the record as court was misled to set
aside the decree of court in H.C.C.S. No. 497 of 2004, a review of the records as
above does not indicate that such an order was given in Misc. Application No. 462
of 2010.
For that reason, the judgment and decree in that suit remains as it has never been
quashed or set aside by any court. It would have of course been irregular if the
Registrar had done so in her ruling in Misc. Application No. 462 of 2010 because
she did not have the power/jurisdiction to review or set aside a decision of a
judge.
I am of the considered opinion that setting aside the dismissal and reinstating
Misc. Application No. 24 of 2011 will not serve any useful purpose in view of the
background of this case as highlighted above. If the application is reinstated, this
court would have to determine whether or not it was irregular for the 1st
applicant and his counsel to proceed with taxation hearing without notifying the
16
administrators of the estate of the late Ndagire. This is a question of fact and law
which in my view would most likely be determined in favour of the respondents.
To my mind the remedy for the applicants does not lie in setting aside the
dismissal and reinstating Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2011. I strongly
believe that the applicants are still at liberty to file a fresh bill of costs in H.C.C.S.
No. 497 of 2004 and serve on the administrators of the late Ndagire’s estate so
that it is taxed inter-parties. This is because as already stated above, it was the
taxation proceedings and ruling that were set aside and execution proceedings
stayed for the reasons given and not the judgment and decree in the main suit in
which cost was awarded to the 1st applicant.
In the circumstances, taking this application in its context as analysed above, this
court is satisfied that it is not necessary to grant it because it will not serve the
best interest of justice and expediency. In the result this application is accordingly
dismissed with costs.
I so order.
Dated this 24th day of February 2010.
Hellen Obura
JUDGE
Ruling delivered in chambers at 3.00 pm in the presence Mr. Denis Byaruhanga
for the applicants, Mr. Steven Babi the 1st applicant and Mr. Henry Sebwami one
of the respondents.
17
JUDGE
24/02/2012
18