[2019] UGIC 15
The court found that although the administrative assistant failed to forward the documents to the Managing Director, this inadvertence should not be visited on the respondent. However, recognizing the applicant's right to be heard and the interest in defending the claim, the court exercised its discretion to allow...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] UGIC 15
- Parties
- Applicant: Appliance World (U) Ltd.; Respondent: Aliker Joseph Ringa
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 204 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Reply
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Service of Process, Company Representation, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Appliance World (U) Ltd.
Applicant
Aliker Joseph Ringa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Reply
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file a memorandum in reply.
- 2 Whether service effected on the administrative assistant was proper service under the law.
- 3 Whether the applicant's inadvertent failure to respond should be excused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the administrative assistant failed to forward the documents to the Managing Director, this inadvertence should not be visited on the respondent. However, recognizing the applicant's right to be heard and the interest in defending the claim, the court exercised its discretion to allow the extension of time for filing a memorandum in reply. The court emphasized the importance of substantive justice and the constitutional right to be heard, but also held the applicant responsible for costs due to its negligence.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Applicant is granted extension of time to file a memorandum in reply within 7 days from the date of ruling.
- Applicant shall pay costs occasioned by the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
**MISC. APPLN. NO 204 OF 2018**
**(ARISING FROM MGLSD NO. 042/2018)**
**APPLIANCE WORLD (U) LTD.……………………………………….….. CLAIMANT**
**AND**
**ALIKER JOSEPH RINGA………………………………………....…RESPONDENT**
**BEFORE**
1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye
2. Hon. Lady Justice Linda Tumusiime Mugisha
**PANELISTS**
1. Mr. Ebyau Fidel 2. Ms. Harriet MugambwaNganzi 3. Mr. F. X. Mubuuke
**RULING**
This application is for extension of time within which to file a memorandum in reply. It is supported by an affidavit deponed to by one Nsiima Collen. An affidavit in reply is also on the record deponed to by one Aliker Joseph Ringa, the claimant. We have heard and considered the submissions of both counsel. We have also perused carefully both the Notice of Motion and the respective affidavits.
True, the service was effected on to a receptionist of the applicant company who forwarded it to the Administrative Assistant to the Managing Director.
According to the Notice of Motion, the Administrative Assistant inadvertently forgot to bring the documents to the Managing Director. Counsel for the applicant relied heavily on order 29rr2 of the CPR which provides for service upon a principle officer of the company. Counsel for the respondent contended that the receptionist having forwarded the documents to the M. D., it was upon the M. D. to instruct counsel to file a reply to the claim.
In the case of **CIPLA QUALTIY CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES VS NAMAKOYE LUCY** **M. A. 84/2017**, relied upon by counsel for the applicant, this court stated
**“A company is a legal person though it is an artificial person. It therefore acts through human beings whose actions necessarily bind the company. The important question therefore is whether the person who was served was in such position as either to take immediate action or had the capacity to give the necessary information to the person with capacity to take action”.**
The above case is authority for the legal proposition that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an administrative assistant was a principal officer who ought to have acted on the court paper orcommunicated to whoever was expected to act and that failure to do so could not be visited on to the respondent.
In the instant case therefore the inadvertent forgetfulness of the administrative assistant to forward the documents which he/she had received from the receptionist to the managing director could not be visited onto the respondents. But as court stated in the above case, we recognize the right of the applicant to be heard as provided under **Article 28(2) of the Constitution**. Since this court is established to administer substantive justice and the applicant has shown interest in defending the claim, we will allow the application and allow the applicant to file a memorandum in reply with 7 days from today.
Since this application arose because of the negligence of the applicant and the respondent had to appear to defend it, the applicant shall pay costs occasioned. Order accordingly.
**Signed by:**
1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye ……………………………..
2. Hon. Lady Justice Linda Tumusiime Mugisha ……………………………..
**PANELISTS**
1. Mr. Ebyau Fidel …………………………….. 2. Ms. Harriet MugambwaNganzi …………………………….. 3. Mr. F. X. Mubuuke ……………………………..
**Dated: 10/01/2019**