[2023] UGIC 36
The court held that it is a requirement for the applicant to serve the respondent with the application so that the respondent can file a reply. Since there was no evidence that the respondent was served, and no reply was on record, the court could not resolve the application on its merits. The court ordered the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] UGIC 36
- Parties
- Applicant: Dairy Development Authority; Respondent: Beronda Edwin
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 126 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Dismissal of Main Claim
- Outcome
- application stayed pending service and reply
- Judges
- Tumusiime-Mugisha, J, Bwire, Panel Member, Katende, Panel Member, Nyachwo panel member
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Service of Process, Right to Fair Hearing
- 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
Dairy Development Authority
Applicant
Beronda Edwin
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Dismissal of Main Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file a reply to the memorandum of claim.
- 2 Whether the main claim should be dismissed due to alleged irregular service of the memorandum of claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it is a requirement for the applicant to serve the respondent with the application so that the respondent can file a reply. Since there was no evidence that the respondent was served, and no reply was on record, the court could not resolve the application on its merits. The court ordered the applicant to serve the respondent with the application and submissions within 14 days, and the respondent to file its reply within 14 days of service. The application was stayed pending receipt of the respondent's reply and submissions.
Court Disposition
application stayed pending service and reply
Orders
- The applicant is ordered to serve the respondent with the application and attendant submissions within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
- The respondent is ordered to file its reply and attendant submissions within 14 days from the date of receipt of service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
## **<sup>5</sup>** THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LABOUR DISPUTE: MISCELLANOUS APPLICATION No.126 OF 2022
## ARISING FROM LABOUR DISPUTE REFERENCE 83/2022
DIARY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPLICANT
#### io VERSUS
BERONDA EDWIN RESPONDENT
BEFORE:
- **1. THE HON. AG. HEAD JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSHME MUGISHA PANELISTS** - **<sup>15</sup>** 1. MR. BWIRE JOHN ABRAHAM
#### **2. MR. KATENDE PATRICK**
**3. MS. JULIAN NYACHWO**
### **RULING**
This ruling arises out of the above application brought under **Rule 6 Labour 20 Dispute (Arbitration & Settlement) (Industrial Court Procedure) Rules.**
The application seeks for time be extended for the applicant to respond to the memorandum of claim in Labour Dispute Reference No. 83/2022 and for the Main Claim to be dismissed.
**1**
**25 30** The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by one Akankiza Samson Mpiira, the Director Technical Services of the Applicant to the effect that, the Applicant's delay to file a reply to the memorandum of claim was occasioned by the Respondent, who served them with a Notice ofClaim after the expiry ofthe requisite 21 days. That whereas the Claim was endorsed by Court on 5/05/2022, it was only served on the Applicant on 10/06/2022. Therefore, it was procedurally wrong to file a reply based on the Notice of Claim which was irregular.
The Respondent's filed no reply or submissions to this application. The Applicant on the other hand, also filed submissions. However, there is no evidence on the record to indicate that, the Respondents were served with the Application, to enable them to file their reply. Therefore, it is highly probable that, they are not aware of the existence ofthis application.
#### **DECISION OF COURT**
**35**
**40**
**45**
Article 28 of the Constitution of Uganda (as amended) provides that, in the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. It therefore, a requirement for the Applicant to serve the Respondent with the Application, so that he or she can file a reply to the same. This application seeks leave ofthis court to file its reply to the Respondent's memorandum ofClaim out oftime, on grounds that the Respondent itself, served it with the memorandum of claim outside the prescribed time. Therefore, in order for court to be able to completely resolve the Application, the Respondent's reply to it, ought to be on the record. This is not the case.
In the circumstances, the Applicant is ordered to serve the Respondent with the Application and attendant submissions within 14 days from the date ofthis ruling,
**50** similarly the Respondent is ordered to file its reply and attendant submissions within 14 days from the date of receipt of service of the Notice of motion, Affidavit in support and attendant submissions.
The application is therefore stayed pending the receipt of the Respondent's reply and attendant submissions on the record.
**<sup>55</sup>** Each party shall bear its own costs.
Delivered and signed by:
**THE HON. AG. HEAD JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSHME MUG**
#### **PANELISTS**
**<sup>60</sup> 1. MR. BWIRE JOHN ABRAHAM 2. MR. KATENDE PATRICK 3. MS. JULIAN NYACHWO DATE: 27/02/2023**
**65**
B
**\***
**3**