Kacwano Steven Vs. Kyeyamwa William (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 115 (21 July 2010)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f260\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f261\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f263\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f264\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f265\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f266\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f267\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f268\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 \styrsid1903161 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\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid7034242 footer;}{\*\cs16 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid7034242 page number;}{ \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid465388 header;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0} {\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid-764216158\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li720 \jclisttab\tx720\lin720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel \levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360 \levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703 \'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li6480\jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 } {\listname ;}\listid1774394268}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1774394268\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid156874\rsid218070\rsid398375\rsid412287\rsid462117\rsid465388\rsid479340\rsid550501\rsid667019\rsid742618\rsid1588710\rsid1604467 \rsid1649276\rsid1903161\rsid1908279\rsid2111036\rsid2180099\rsid2431614\rsid2446201\rsid2450521\rsid3015245\rsid3038010\rsid3088911\rsid3223856\rsid3357784\rsid3557273\rsid3619390\rsid3625069\rsid3633980\rsid3825718\rsid3893497\rsid4014144\rsid4133423 \rsid4395796\rsid4939871\rsid4981424\rsid5054244\rsid5184531\rsid5580879\rsid5991889\rsid6048343\rsid6297051\rsid6384672\rsid6577230\rsid6582991\rsid6619730\rsid6624234\rsid6826131\rsid7034242\rsid7348700\rsid7630904\rsid7668578\rsid7743468\rsid8147248 \rsid8258208\rsid8271132\rsid8275746\rsid8343273\rsid8747365\rsid8934883\rsid9111880\rsid9198653\rsid9378309\rsid9389795\rsid9455799\rsid9772863\rsid10945861\rsid11102809\rsid11147281\rsid11172434\rsid11283654\rsid11300617\rsid11361575\rsid11498766 \rsid11674874\rsid11761752\rsid11820585\rsid11869576\rsid12332266\rsid12650195\rsid12725662\rsid12726471\rsid12798000\rsid12865147\rsid13191852\rsid13452673\rsid13511493\rsid13727422\rsid13856242\rsid14252881\rsid14496929\rsid15008193\rsid15495062 \rsid15562949\rsid15744186\rsid16019746\rsid16387122\rsid16605538\rsid16609595}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\author Home}{\operator jmugala}{\creatim\yr2011\mo4\dy4\hr15\min23} {\revtim\yr2011\mo4\dy4\hr15\min23}{\version2}{\edmins2}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords3063}{\nofchars17460}{\nofcharsws20483}{\vern24689}}\margt1152 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin \dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1152\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale150\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot1903161\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2111036 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2111036 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2111036 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2111036 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid16019746\sftnbj {\*\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 \qc \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \par IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA \par CIVIL APPEAL NO. 0039 OF 2010 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 \par }{\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 KACWANO STEVEN::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\insrsid14252881\charrsid465388 ::::}{\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 APPELLANT \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 VERSUS \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 \par KYEYAMWA WILLIAM:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 \par }{\b\i\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 [Appeal from the Decision of His Worship Kintu Simon Zirintusa in Kamuli Msc. Application No. 014 of 2010 \par dated the 22}{\b\i\super\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 nd}{\b\i\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 February 2010]}{\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 BEFORE: }{\b\ul\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 HON. LADY JUSTICE IRENE MULYAGONJA KAKOOZA \par }{\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\b\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 JUDGMENT \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid8258208\charrsid465388 The appellant brought this appeal against the ruling and orders of H is Worship Kintu Simon Zirintusa sitting as Grade I Magistrate at the Chief Magistrates Court at Kamuli, where he}{\insrsid11172434\charrsid465388 dismissed the appellant\rquote s application to set aside the dismissal of his application for leave to appear and defend in C/S No. 004 of 2010.}{\insrsid8258208\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid11172434\charrsid465388 The trial magistrate further affirmed his judgment and orders in the suit which were a declaration that the respondent was the lawful owner of a piece of land at Buwaiswa,}{\insrsid8258208\charrsid465388 that the appellant do pay to the respondent shs 877,500/= being the cost of tree seedlings and shs 1,180,000/=, the cost of hiring private detectives,}{\insrsid14252881\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid8258208\charrsid465388 the costs of the suit}{ \insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 ,}{\insrsid8258208\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 as well as }{\insrsid8258208\charrsid465388 interest}{\insrsid11820585\charrsid465388 on the decretal amount}{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 and costs} {\insrsid8258208\charrsid465388 .}{\insrsid1903161\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid11102809\charrsid465388 \par The background to the appeal was that on 27/01/2010, the respondent filed C/S No. 004 against the appellant in Kam uli Court under the provisions of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He claimed that the appellant sold him a piece of land at Buwaiswa, Kibuye, Balawoli sub-county in Kamuli District. An agreement of sale was attached to the plaint.}{ \insrsid7348700\charrsid465388 The specially endorsed plaint was served on the appellant who }{\insrsid465388\charrsid465388 responded}{\insrsid7348700\charrsid465388 by filing M}{\insrsid465388 i}{\insrsid7348700\charrsid465388 sc. Application No. 10 of 2010 through his lawyers, M/s Habakurama & }{\insrsid11498766\charrsid465388 Co. Advocates. The application was filed on 11/02/2010}{\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 . On the 12/02/2010, the trial magistrate endorsed the application and allotted it the 22/02/2010 as the date for hearing. }{\insrsid11498766\charrsid465388 On 19/02/2010, the respondent filed an affidavit in reply to the application for leave to appear and defend. There is no evidence }{\insrsid7034242\charrsid465388 on record }{\insrsid11498766\charrsid465388 that he was served with the application by M/s Habakurama & Co. Advocates}{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 ,}{\insrsid11498766\charrsid465388 before he filed his affidavit in reply.}{\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid7034242\charrsid465388

\par \par }{\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 On 22/02/2010, the respondent appeared before the trial magistrate. }{\insrsid7034242\charrsid465388 There was no one in court from }{\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 M/s Habakurama & Co Advocates who had filed the application on behalf of the appellant (then the applicant)}{\insrsid7034242\charrsid465388 .}{\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 The}{\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 appellant}{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 was also absent}{\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 . The respondent who appeared }{\i\insrsid12865147\charrsid465388 pro se}{\insrsid12798000\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid7034242\charrsid465388 then }{ \insrsid12798000\charrsid465388 applied to have the appellant\rquote s application dismissed because }{\insrsid7034242\charrsid465388 in his opinion, the appellant }{\insrsid12798000\charrsid465388 had failed to prosecute it.}{ \insrsid12725662\charrsid465388 The trial magistrate dismissed the application and made the orders enumerated above.}{\insrsid11102809\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 \par On 26/02/2010, the appellant filed Msc. Application No. 014 of 2010 }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 for orders }{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 to set aside the dismissal of }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 and for}{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 reinstatement of the application for leave to appear and defend}{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 ,}{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 so that it could be heard on its merits, as well as for an order for stay of execution of the decree that arose }{ \insrsid465388\charrsid465388 there from}{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 .}{\insrsid6582991\charrsid465388 The court set the 9/03/2010 as the date on which the application would be heard. On 4/03/2010, one Kitawu James, a process server at Kamuli Court, effected service of the application on the respondent at his office in Jinja and swore an affidavit }{ \insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 of }{\insrsid6582991\charrsid465388 service on }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 5/03/}{\insrsid6582991\charrsid465388 2010. }{\insrsid1908279\charrsid465388 The parties and advocates appeared in court on 9/03/2010 but the application did not proceed. It was adjourned to the 20/03/2010. An interim order for stay of ex ecution was granted in favour of the appellant and the application adjourned for hearing on 30/03/2010. }{\insrsid6582991\charrsid465388 The respondent filed an affidavit in reply to the application on 25/03/2010.}{\insrsid1908279\charrsid465388 \par \par On 30/03/2010, both parties and Mr. Habakurama for the appellant were in court. The application was heard and the ruling reserved for 13/04/2010. On that day, the trial magistrate delivered his ruling dismissing the application to set aside his judgment and orders. He reinstated the judgment and orders and set aside the interi m order for stay of execution, and hence this appeal.}{\insrsid15562949\charrsid465388 \par \par The memorandum of appeal raised 3 grounds of appeal as follows: \par \par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15562949\charrsid465388 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1.\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-360\li720\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx720\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin-360\lin720\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid15562949\charrsid465388 The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when he came to the conclusion that the appellant and his counsel were aware of the he aring date in the absence of an affidavit of service or any credible evidence in proof of the fact that either counsel or the appellant was aware of the hearing date thereby reaching a wrong and unjust decision. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid15562949\charrsid465388 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15562949\charrsid465388 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2.\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-360\li720\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx720\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin-360\lin720\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid15562949\charrsid465388 The learned trial magistrate acted with a l ot of bias and failed to judiciously exercise the jurisdiction vested in him when he elected without any justifiable cause to lock out the appellant from taking part in the proceeding thereby going against the constitutional right of fair hearing. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 3.\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-360\li720\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx720\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin-360\lin720\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 he }{\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 came to the conclusion that the appellant had no }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 defence}{\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 to the entire suit thereby reaching (an) unjust and wrong decision that occasioned a miscarriage of justice. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 \par The appellant prayed that the order dismissing his application }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 be }{\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 set aside, the application be reinstated and heard on its merits and that the }{\i\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 ex parte}{ \insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 judgment}{\insrsid218070\charrsid465388 and the}{\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 decree}{\insrsid218070\charrsid465388 , as well as execution thereof}{\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 be set aside}{ \insrsid218070\charrsid465388 .}{\insrsid6619730\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid1908279\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid16609595\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid12650195\charrsid465388 At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Elias Habakurama who represented the appellant argued the first two grounds together and ground three separately.}{\insrsid218070\charrsid465388 With regard to ground}{ \insrsid9111880\charrsid465388 s 1 and 2}{\insrsid218070\charrsid465388 he contended that there was no evidence to show that either the appellant or his advocates had notice that the application for leave to defen}{\insrsid9111880\charrsid465388 d had been set down for hearing on 22/2/2010. Further that there was no evidence that the affidavit in reply to the application was ever served on the appellant or his advocates. That as a result the trial magistrate erred when he ruled that the appellant and his advocates failed to show that there was sufficient cause to reinstate the application and in the resultant dismissal of the appellant\rquote s application.}{\insrsid12650195\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid8275746\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid156874\charrsid465388 Turning to the third ground, Mr. Habakurama submitted that the trial magistrate\rquote s finding that the appellant had no defence to the suit was premature}{\insrsid8275746\charrsid465388 . In his view, such a finding could have only been in order after the appellant had been heard on the proposed defence.}{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 \par \par Though he was represented}{\insrsid2446201\charrsid465388 at the hearing of the appeal}{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 by Ms. Leah Kisaalu,}{\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 she informed court that she was not prepared to make a reply}{ \insrsid2446201\charrsid465388 to Mr Habakurama\rquote s submissions}{\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 . }{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 She}{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 prayed that she be allowed to file written submissions which she did on 24/06/2010. }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 \par \par }{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 With regard to the 1}{\super\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 st}{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 and }{\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 2}{\super\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 nd}{\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 grounds} {\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 of appeal, counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial magistrate\rquote s finding that the appellant was aware of the hearing date should be affirmed. The reasons advanced were that the appellant ought to have been aware of the 22/02/2010 as the hearing date because it was he that filed the application. }{ \insrsid13727422\charrsid465388 Further }{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 that the appellant deposed in his affidavit in support of the application that on the 19/02/2010}{\insrsid13727422\charrsid465388 his advocate}{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 was in court at Kamuli and inquired about the date set for hearing of the application. That as a result, the appellant could not claim that he was not aware that the application was fixed for hearing on 22/02/2010}{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 because his advocate had checked on the file a few days before that date}{\insrsid11674874\charrsid465388 .}{\insrsid13727422\charrsid465388 It was further argued for the respondent that the court had no obligation to serve an applicant with his/her application. That since the applicant and counsel did not appear in court on the 22/02/2010, the trial magistrate was correct when he dismissed the application }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 because }{\insrsid13727422\charrsid465388 Order 9 rule 22 of the CPR empowered him to do so. }{\insrsid156874\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid13727422\charrsid465388 \par Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the}{\insrsid3633980\charrsid465388 re was no injustice occasioned and the}{\insrsid13727422\charrsid465388 appellant\rquote s right to be heard was not contravened because it was his obligation to follow up the application after it was filed}{\insrsid3633980\charrsid465388 and to obtain a hearing date for it. That since he or his advoc ates failed to do so, the dismissal of the application could neither be blamed on the respondent nor on the court.}{\insrsid13727422\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid1604467\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 With regard }{\insrsid1604467\charrsid465388 to the 3}{\super\insrsid1604467\charrsid465388 rd}{\insrsid1604467\charrsid465388 ground of appeal, counsel for the respondent argued that due to the failure of the appellant and his counsel to prose cute the application for leave to defend, the trial magistrate came to the correct decision when he dismissed the application. The he correctly entered a decree under the provisions of Order 36 rule 3 (2) of the CPR. Counsel for the respondent further arg ued that the appellant was not entitled to an order for stay of execution because execution was over}{\insrsid5184531\charrsid465388 . She submitted that stay of execution pending an appeal could only be granted except where there are special circumstances and good cause to justify such a course. She }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 finally }{\insrsid5184531\charrsid465388 submitted that the appellant was not entitled to costs for this appeal because he had not shown that the respondent was at fault.}{\insrsid1604467\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 The duty of the first appellate court is to rehear the case on appeal by reconsidering all the evidence b efore the trial court and coming up with its own decision. The parties are entitled to obtain from the appeal court its own decision on issues of fact as well as of law [}{\b\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 Father Narsensio B}{ \b\insrsid9772863\charrsid465388 egumisa}{\b\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 & Others v. Eric Tibekinga, S}{\b\insrsid6297051\charrsid465388 /}{\b\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 C Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002 (unreported)}{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 ]. I now proceed to re-evaluate the evidence on record}{\insrsid2446201\charrsid465388 taking into}{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 consider}{\insrsid2446201\charrsid465388 ation}{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 the issues raised in}{ \insrsid4939871\charrsid465388 each ground }{\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 and }{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 the submissions }{\insrsid6297051\charrsid465388 made on behalf of the}{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 parties. I will address the grounds in the same manner that counsel for both parties addressed them. }{\insrsid9455799\charrsid465388 \par }{\b\ul\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 \par Grounds 1 and 2 \par }{\insrsid11761752\charrsid465388 The appellant\rquote s application to set aside the dismissal of his application was brought under the pro}{\insrsid2431614\charrsid465388 visions of Order 36 rule 11 CPR and s.98 of the Civil Procedure Act.}{ \insrsid2180099\charrsid465388 Order 36 rule 11 provides that \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid465388 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid2180099\charrsid465388 \'93After the decree the court may, if satisfied that }{ \b\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid2180099\charrsid465388 the service of the summons was not effective, or for any other good cause, }{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid2180099\charrsid465388 which shall be recorded, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons a nd to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the court so to do, and on such terms as the court thinks fit.\'94 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid2180099\charrsid465388 \par The appellant\rquote s main reason for not attending the hearing where his application was dismissed was that he was not aware of that date. Neither was his advocate.}{\insrsid11300617\charrsid465388 In arriving at his decision on this issue, the trial magistrate ruled as follows:}{\insrsid11361575\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid11869576\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin720\itap0\pararsid465388 {\i\insrsid412287\charrsid465388 \'93}{\i\insrsid11869576\charrsid465388 In my considered opinion, I find that the applicant and his counsel have not furnished court with sufficient cause for not appearing when the application was dismissed. The applicant\rquote s counsel filed Msc. App. No. 10 on 11/02/10 and on 12/02/10 the application was signed and sealed by the magistrate and fixed for 22/02/2010. \par \par The applicant claims that his counsel was in court on 19/02/2010 but a court clerk told him that the application was not yet fixed. The applicant does not disclose the name of the clerk from }{\i\insrsid7668578\charrsid465388 whom }{ \i\insrsid11869576\charrsid465388 his counsel obtained this information which implies total lack of proof of vigilance by the applicant and his counsel. \par \par }{\i\ul\insrsid11869576\charrsid465388 On that said date of 19/02/10, the respondent though not served filed an affidavit in reply to the application.}{\i\ul\insrsid412287\charrsid465388 This shows that the matter was already fixed and counsel was never in court to check on the case on that day. \par }{\i\insrsid412287\charrsid465388 \par The respondent was more vigilant and equity protects the vigilant and not the indolent. \'85\'94}{\i\insrsid11869576\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\i\insrsid412287\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid15008193\charrsid465388 It is interesting to note that the trial magistrate noted that no service of the application was effected on the respondent. This proved that though the court had allotted the application a date for hearing by 19/02/2010, the applicant\rquote s counsel could not have gotten to know about it without looking at the application. In spite of that, in order to justify his finding that both the applicant and his advocate failed to establish that the application had been fixed for hear ing on the 22/02/2010}{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 the}{\insrsid412287\charrsid465388 trial magistrate went on to castigate the appellant for not being interested in the matter}{\insrsid15008193\charrsid465388 . No}{\insrsid2450521\charrsid465388 where did he point out th}{\insrsid5580879\charrsid465388 at}{\insrsid8747365\charrsid465388 when counsel for the applicant }{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 who filed the application failed to follow it up}{\insrsid8747365\charrsid465388 ,}{ \insrsid2450521\charrsid465388 notice }{\insrsid8747365\charrsid465388 of the hearing }{\insrsid2450521\charrsid465388 was given to the appellant before court }{\insrsid5580879\charrsid465388 heard and }{\insrsid2450521\charrsid465388 dismissed it.}{ \insrsid9198653\charrsid465388 In the circumstance, there is no other way that the appellant could have }{\insrsid3223856\charrsid465388 known}{\insrsid9198653\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid3223856\charrsid465388 about}{\insrsid9198653\charrsid465388 the hearing date }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 without information from his advocates}{\insrsid9198653\charrsid465388 .}{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 \par \par }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 Apart from}{\insrsid7630904\charrsid465388 the above, }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 it would appear that }{\insrsid7630904\charrsid465388 the trial magistrate}{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 }{ \insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 completely }{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 misunderstood the appellant\rquote s averment in paragraph 7 of his affidavit }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 where he averred }{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 that his advocate went to court and a clerk told him that the application had not yet been allocated a date for hearing. The appellant stated tha t he believed the information from his advocate that when he went to the court on 19/02/2010 he was informed that the file was still before the trial magistrate who was to allot it a }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 hearing }{ \insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 date. It was not }{\insrsid4014144\charrsid465388 the appellant\rquote s}{\insrsid13511493\charrsid465388 obligation }{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 to know the names of clerks in the registry at the court}{ \insrsid4014144\charrsid465388 ; neither was it expected of him. In spite of that}{\insrsid550501\charrsid465388 the trial magistrate ruled that he did not believe }{\insrsid4014144\charrsid465388 the appellant\rquote s}{\insrsid550501\charrsid465388 statement because }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 he omitted to state the}{\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid550501\charrsid465388 name }{\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 of }{\insrsid550501\charrsid465388 the clerk who gave this information to his advocate}{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 . }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 I think the magistrate went too far. }{\insrsid462117\charrsid465388 The appellant had clearly stated that he did not attend court because he did not know the date when the application had been fixed for hearing. I am of the view that when he stated so, he discharged the burden of provin g that he failed to attend court for sufficient cause. }{\insrsid11147281\charrsid465388 \par \par I think the trial magistrate meant to infer from this averment that the advocate lied to his client about the information from the clerk and that the client was perpetuate his advocate\rquote s lie in court. }{\insrsid3625069\charrsid465388 He did not believe that the clerk }{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 could}{\insrsid3625069\charrsid465388 have misinformed the advocate.}{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 The carelessness and/or negligence of clerks in the courts is a fact that judicial officers should be aware of. An advocate who brings this to the notice of court should not be penali sed for it; neither should a litigant. This does not mean that advocates are never negligent. I am of the view that w}{\insrsid462117\charrsid465388 hen he lumped the appellant }{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 together with }{ \insrsid462117\charrsid465388 his advocate}{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 as indolent}{\insrsid462117\charrsid465388 in his ruling, }{\insrsid6624234\charrsid465388 t}{\insrsid462117\charrsid465388 he}{\insrsid6624234\charrsid465388 trial magistrate} {\insrsid462117\charrsid465388 i}{\insrsid3357784\charrsid465388 n effect punished the appellant for his advocate\rquote s failure to follow up the matter.}{\insrsid412287\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 I am aware of the doctrine that a man or woman who empowers an agent to act for him/her is not allowed to plead ignorance of his/her agent's dealings (}{\b\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 Twiga Chemicals v. Viola Bamusedde Bwambale, C/A Civil Appeal No 9 }{ \b\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 of }{\b\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 2002}{\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 ). }{\insrsid4395796\charrsid465388 However, in }{\b\insrsid4395796\charrsid465388 Captain Philip Ongom v. Catherine Nyero Owota, S/C Civil Appeal No.14 of 2001, }{\insrsid4395796\charrsid465388 it was held that }{\insrsid3825718\charrsid465388 though it is an elementary principle of our legal system, that the acts and omissions of the advocate in the course of represe ntation bind a litigant who is represented by an advocate, in applying that principle, the court must exercise care to avoid abuse of the system and/or unjust or ridiculous results. It was further held that a proper guide in applying the principle is its premise, namely that the advocate's conduct is in pursuit of and within the scope of what the advocate was engaged to do. In light of that, a litigant ought not to bear the consequences of the advocate}{ \insrsid398375\charrsid465388 \rquote }{\insrsid3825718\charrsid465388 s default, unless the litigant is privy to the default, or the default results from failure on the part of the litigant to give to the advocate due instructions.}{ \insrsid11283654\charrsid465388 \par \par In conclusion, I find that the}{\insrsid4981424\charrsid465388 appellant cannot be guilty of failing to follow up his application because he had entrusted the matter to an advocat e. If the advocate was not vigilant in following up the application, the appellant was not privy to his negligence. The}{\insrsid11283654\charrsid465388 trial magistrate }{\insrsid4981424\charrsid465388 therefore }{\insrsid11283654\charrsid465388 erred when he ruled that the appellant}{\insrsid4981424\charrsid465388 was guilty of indolence and that he}{\insrsid11283654\charrsid465388 had failed to prove that there was sufficient cause for his failure to attend the hearing on the 22/02/2010.}{ \insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid4981424\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid4981424\charrsid465388 As to whether the trial magistrate was biased against the appellant when he refused to set aside the order dismissing his application, no arguments were advanced }{\insrsid5991889\charrsid465388 by }{\insrsid9389795\charrsid465388 Mr.}{ \insrsid5991889\charrsid465388 Habakurama to support the allegation}{\insrsid4981424\charrsid465388 .}{\insrsid5991889\charrsid465388 The contention that he was denied the right to be heard was also not sufficiently canvassed. However, the right to be heard is sacrosanct and constit}{\insrsid13856242\charrsid465388 utionally guaranteed in Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.}{\insrsid9389795\charrsid465388 In }{\b\insrsid9389795\charrsid465388 National Enterprises Corporation v. Mukisa Foods Ltd; }{\b\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 C/A }{\b\insrsid9389795\charrsid465388 Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997, }{\insrsid9389795\charrsid465388 it was held that denying a party the opportunity to be heard should be the last resort of a court. Unless and until the court has pronounced a judgment}{ \insrsid9389795\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid9389795\charrsid465388 upon the merits of the case or by consent of the parties, it is to have power to revoke the expression of its coercive power where that had only been obtained by failure to follow any of the rules of procedure. \par }{\insrsid6384672\charrsid465388 \par In this case, the application that the appellant sought to have reinstated was only to determine whether he should be allowed to file a defence in the suit because in his view, he had a good defence to the suit. The plaintiff would not have been prejudiced in any way since execution had not issued then . If the appellant had no defence to the suit, that issue }{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 should have }{\insrsid6384672\charrsid465388 b}{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 e}{\insrsid6384672\charrsid465388 e}{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 n}{ \insrsid6384672\charrsid465388 decided }{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 on hearing }{\insrsid6384672\charrsid465388 the application, perhaps to the satisfaction of both parties. But as it stands, the trial magistrate erred when he refused to grant the appellant the opportunity to be heard on his application and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice. \par \par Regarding the}{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 third and}{\insrsid6384672\charrsid465388 final ground of appeal, it }{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 is the case that }{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 o}{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 n }{ \insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 an }{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 application for leave to appear and defend the}{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 court }{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 may }{ \insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 consider whether the applicant/defendant }{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 has }{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 a defence to the plaintiff\rquote s claim.}{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 But the cardinal principle in such applications is for the court to establish whether there are triable issue raised by the grounds stated in the application.}{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 In this case the trial magistrate ruled on that issue as follows:}{\insrsid6384672\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid3619390\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin720\itap0\pararsid465388 {\i\insrsid3619390\charrsid465388 \'93}{\i\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 The applicant in other grounds stated that he has a genuine defence to the entire suit and the land is occupied by other occupants who are co-owners. First of all the applicant did not attach a copy of his written statement of defence to his applicati on No. 10/10 as required and secondly the applicant }{\i\insrsid4133423\charrsid465388 according }{\i\insrsid3619390\charrsid465388 to the sale agreement attached was the seller and no one else as he claims, came to object to the sale or the judgment. I don\rquote t know where the applicant gets authority to talk on behalf of other people who have not objected through affidavit or otherwise to the judgment obtained by the respondent. }{\i\insrsid8271132\charrsid465388 \par }{\i\insrsid3619390\charrsid465388 \par In the interests of justice I find that the applicant sold the suit land to the respondent and this was in the presence of the applicant\rquote s brothers a nd sisters and relatives and now has come forward to object to the sale. Therefore the applicant cannot turn around and claim co-ownership which is not supported by any evidence.\'94}{\insrsid3619390\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid4981424\charrsid465388 \par }{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 There is no legal requirement that an application for leave to appear and defend should have the proposed defence attached to it. The proposed WSD may be attached but that is only}{\insrsid16605538\charrsid465388 a prudent measure and}{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 a rule of practice. In this case, the court was not called upon to decide whether the appellant had a defence to the suit. All th at the court had to decide was whether there was good cause for the appellant\rquote s failure to attend the hearing of his application for leave to appear and defend}{\insrsid667019\charrsid465388 which would enable the court to set aside the ex parte judgment in default of leave to appear and defend the suit}{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 . However, }{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 in his ruling }{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 the trial magistrate went on to decide issues that were pertinent to the application that the appellant sought to have reinstated instead of those in the application before him. He also went on to decide the main i ssue in the suit, i.e. whether the appellant or his brothers and sisters were co-owners of the land in dispu}{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 te}{\insrsid16387122\charrsid465388 ,}{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 on the basis of the plaintiff\rquote s pleading}{\insrsid12332266\charrsid465388 s}{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 alone. This was an error both of law and fact on the part of the trial magistrate, and I find so. }{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 \par \par }{\insrsid8147248\charrsid465388 I }{\insrsid7743468\charrsid465388 therefore }{\insrsid16019746\charrsid465388 entirely }{\insrsid8147248\charrsid465388 agree with Mr. Habakurama\rquote s submission that his findings were}{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 premature}{\insrsid8147248\charrsid465388 . I say so}{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 because }{\insrsid8147248\charrsid465388 the trial magistrate}{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 relied on an agreement }{\insrsid8147248\charrsid465388 that was annexed to the plaint written }{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 in Luganda with no translation}{\insrsid8147248\charrsid465388 into English. Of course}{\insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 no }{\insrsid8343273\charrsid465388 other }{ \insrsid6826131\charrsid465388 evidence had been adduced by either party}{\insrsid8343273\charrsid465388 in the suit}{\insrsid8147248\charrsid465388 to support his findings on that agreement}{\insrsid7743468\charrsid465388 so his findings were unsubstantiated. The trial magistrate prejudged a case and appears to have been biased in favour of the respondent. He thus may have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. \par \par In conclusion, this appeal succeeds. The }{\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 dismissal of the appellant\rquote s application for leave to appear and defend is hereby set aside.}{\insrsid14496929\charrsid465388 Any execution of the judgment and orders is also set aside.}{\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 Further execution of the judgment and orders is }{\insrsid14496929\charrsid465388 also }{\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 hereby stayed. The case file shall be returned to the lower court to enable }{\insrsid12332266\charrsid465388 Mis}{\insrsid15744186\charrsid465388 cellaneous}{\insrsid12332266\charrsid465388 Application No }{\insrsid14496929\charrsid465388 10 }{ \insrsid12332266\charrsid465388 of 2010 }{\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 to be heard}{\insrsid15495062\charrsid465388 on its merits}{\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 . The appellant shall have the costs of this appeal and }{ \insrsid1649276\charrsid465388 those }{\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 in the court below. \par \par \par \par }{\b\insrsid1649276\charrsid465388 \par }{\b\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 Irene Mulyagonja Kakooza \par JUDGE \par 21/07/2010 \par }{\insrsid10945861\charrsid465388 \par \par }{\insrsid7743468\charrsid465388 }{\insrsid6048343\charrsid465388 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-360\lin0\itap0\pararsid465388 {\insrsid3015245\charrsid465388 \par }}