[2007] UGSC 34
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's advocate had shown sufficient cause for not appearing at the hearing, as he was under the impression that settlement negotiations were ongoing. The affidavit provided by the advocate was deemed adequate, and it was not necessary for the respondent to personally swear an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] UGSC 34
- Parties
- Appellant: Ggoloooba Godfrey; Respondent: Harriet Kizito
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No.7 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_dismissed
- Judges
- Odoki, CJ, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Katureebe ,JSC
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Non Appearance, Reinstatement of Suit, Advocate Mistake, Affidavit Requirements
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ggoloooba Godfrey
Appellant
Harriet Kizito
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in overturning the High Court's dismissal of the suit for non-appearance.
- 2 Whether sufficient cause was shown for the respondent's advocate's failure to appear at the hearing.
- 3 Whether the absence of the respondent's personal affidavit and the alleged defect in the advocate's affidavit were fatal to the application for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's advocate had shown sufficient cause for not appearing at the hearing, as he was under the impression that settlement negotiations were ongoing. The affidavit provided by the advocate was deemed adequate, and it was not necessary for the respondent to personally swear an affidavit. The alleged defect in the affidavit regarding the commissioner's name was considered an afterthought and not material to the merits, especially since it was not raised in the lower courts. The principle that a party should not be penalized for the mistake of their advocate was reaffirmed. Consequently, the Court of Appeal was correct in overturning the High Court's...
Court Disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs in the Supreme Court.
- The order of the High Court dismissing the suit is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA
(CORAM: ODOKI, CJ; TSEKOOKO, MUĻENGA, KANYEIHAMBA, AND KATUREEBE, JSC)
# CIVIL APPEAL No.7 OF 2006.
## GGOLOOBA GODFREY ....................................
#### AND
**RESPONDENT** HARRIET KIZITO. [Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal at Kampala (Mpagi-Bahigeine, Engwau and Twinomujuni, JJ. A) dated 22<sup>nd</sup> February, 2006 in Civil Appeal No.65 of 2005]
## JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This is a second appeal from the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal by the respondent whose suit had been dismissed in the High Court for non-appearance on the day of hearing.
Three grounds of appeal have been argued by Mr. Lutakome, counsel for the appellant, in this Court centering on whether the Court of Appeal was correct in not agreeing with the High Court that the respondent's advocate had shown sufficient cause for not appearing at the hearing of the case. The appeal is opposed by Mr. Makada, counsel for the respondent.
Having heard the submissions of both counsel and having considered the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the Court of Appeal came to the correct conclusion that the High Court erred in dismissing the application for reinstatement of the suit when the respondent's advocate had shown sufficient cause for not appearing because he was under the impression that the parties were still negotiating a settlement. His affidavit to that effect was, in our view, sufficient and it was not necessary for the respondent to personally swear an affidavit to that effect. It has been held that a mistake by an advocate should not be visited on a party. We see no merit in the argument by Counsel for the appellant that affidavit was not properly sworn because it did not bear the name of the commissioner for oath who commissioned it. We think that this was an afterthought on the part of the appellant as the matter was not raised in the trial court, or pressed in the Court
of Appeal.
In the result we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs in this Court.
$\overline{2}$
We set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the suit and reinstate the suit to be heard on its own merits.
Dated at Mengo this 27<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2007.
**B. L. ODOKI CHIEF JUSTICE**
J. W. N. TSEKOOKO JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
**J. N. MULENGA** JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
inusanh amba
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
pruhali
**B. M. KATUREEBE** JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT