[2017] UGHCCD 151

[2017] UGHCCD 151

The court found that, given the public importance of the land dispute involving telecommunications infrastructure and the fact that no final judgment had been entered, it was just and necessary to set aside the ex parte proceedings and allow the matter to be heard inter-parties. The court exercised its discretion...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UGHCCD 151
Parties
Applicant: Airtel Uganda Ltd; Applicant: Bageine & Co. Limited; Respondent: Haji Musa Hassan
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
3 August 2017
Case Number
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 20171
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings and for Joint Survey
Outcome
application allowed with costs to respondent
Judges
Musene, J
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Land Disputes, Court Discretion, Delay and Dilatory Conduct
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Land Disputes Court Discretion Delay and Dilatory Conduct

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airtel Uganda Ltd

Applicant

Bageine & Co. Limited

Applicant

Haji Musa Hassan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings and for Joint Survey

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte proceedings should be set aside to allow the matter to be heard inter-parties.
  2. 2 Whether a joint survey of the land in dispute should be ordered to ascertain the location of the mast.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for their non-attendance and delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, given the public importance of the land dispute involving telecommunications infrastructure and the fact that no final judgment had been entered, it was just and necessary to set aside the ex parte proceedings and allow the matter to be heard inter-parties. The court exercised its discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 33 of the Judicature Act, emphasizing the need for all parties to be heard and for the case to be determined on its merits. However, due to the applicants' delay in bringing the application, the court awarded costs of the application to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application allowed with costs to respondent

Orders

  • The ex parte proceedings are set aside and the matter shall be heard inter-parties.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the respondent.