[2021] UGIC 104
The court found that the absence of an affidavit in reply from the respondent constituted a fatal omission, leaving the applicant's assertions unrebutted. The applicant demonstrated that questions of fact were material to the appeal and that the labour officer may have failed to properly evaluate the evidence....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] UGIC 104
- Parties
- Applicant: Alliance One Tobacco; Respondent: Moses Nsenga Rudahigwa
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 83 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Dispute Application / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Namara, Panel Member, Nabirye, Panel Member, Matovu, Panel Member
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Evaluation of Evidence, Labour Officer Award
- 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
Alliance One Tobacco
Applicant
Moses Nsenga Rudahigwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Dispute Application / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal on matters of fact should be granted.
- 2 Whether the absence of an affidavit in reply constitutes a fatal omission.
- 3 Whether the labour officer failed to properly evaluate the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the absence of an affidavit in reply from the respondent constituted a fatal omission, leaving the applicant's assertions unrebutted. The applicant demonstrated that questions of fact were material to the appeal and that the labour officer may have failed to properly evaluate the evidence. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal on matters of fact to allow for a review of the correctness of the labour officer's decision.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave to appeal on matters of fact is granted.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LABOUR DISPUTE APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2021 [ARISING FROM LC/168/1/1/156/2019]
## BETWEEN
ALLIANCE ONE TOBBACO CLAIMANT
# VERSUS
MOSES NSENGA RUDAHIGWA RESPONDENT
#### BEFORE
**ft.**
**ir**
I
Hon. Head Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye 1.
#### PANELISTS
- Ms. Adrine Namara 1. - Ms. Susan Nabirye 2. - Mr. Michael Matovu 3.
#### RULING
This is an application under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 94(2) of the Employment Act and 0.52 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks an order of this court for leave to appeal on matters of fact forming part of the Award of the Labour Officer sitting at Hoima in complaint No. 168/1/156/2019. REPRESENTATION:
The applicant was represented by M/s Nabale Shilla on brief for M/s Byarugaba Kusiima from M/S Shunubi Musoke & CO Advocates while the respondent was represented by Mr. Allan Bariyo and M/s Sofia Kigozi from <sup>a</sup> firm of advocates not disclosed on the file.
The grounds of the application are well set out in the notice of motion which is supported by an affidavit sworn by one Patricia Tukahirwa of M/s. Shonubi Musoke & Co. Advocates and <sup>a</sup> Human Resource Manager of the applicant.
The affidavit (among others) asserts that questions of fact are material in reversing the Award of the labour officer against which the Appeal has been lodged and that these facts illustrate the failure of the labour officer to properly evaluate the evidence thereby arriving at <sup>a</sup> wrong decision.
**n**
**/**
By the time this matter came up for <sup>a</sup> panel discussion, no affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent, although the applicant's submissions were on record. Decision of court:
We have\_perused the Notice of Motion carefully and the affidavit in support as well as the submissions of the applicant.
In the case of DFCU Bank Limited Vs Godfrey Muwanga Misc. Appl. 240/2018 (Land Division), relying on the case of Agro Supplier Ltd. Vs Uganda Development Bank, HCCS 379/2005, the Hon. Justice Henry I. Kaweesa held that the effect of not filing an affidavit where the law requires is <sup>a</sup> fatal omission and that the absence of an affidavit in reply implies there is no rebuttal to an application.
In the instant application there is no rebuttal of the assertions in paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the application that the questions of fact are material to the appeal and that the same facts illustrate the failure of the labor officer to evaluate the evidence.
Accordingly, we agree with the submission of counsel for the applicant that leave be granted so as to revisit the correctness of the decision of the labour officer by reviewing the questions of fact. The application is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs is made.
DELIVERED & SIGNED BY:
1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye
## PANELISTS
- Ms. Adrine Namara **\** 1. - Ms. Susan Nabirye 2. - Mr. Michael Matovu 3.
Dated: 05/11/2021
**■V**