[2025] UGIC 29


## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2024** *(Arising From Labour Dispute Reference No. 108 Of2024)*

# **KAYONGO MARK PAUL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT**

## **VERSUS**

**NDEJJE UNIVERSITY::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**

**Before:** The Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana

**Panelists:** Hon. Adrine Namara, Hon. Susan Nabirye & Hon. Michael Matovu.

*Representation:*

*1. Ms. Cleopatra Muhereza holding brieffor Mr. Robert Bautu ofMs. Arcadia Advocates for the Applicant*

*2. Mr. TimohtyAkampurira holding brief for Mr. Frederick Mpanga ofAF Mpanga Advocates for the Respondent*

*Case Summary:*

*Employment law and procedure- time limits for filing of memorandum of claim- the Industrial Court Case Management Information System-ICCMIS- embracing information technology in legal proceedings-*

*This ruling addresses an application to strike out ^a memorandum in reply, alleging that it was filed late and potentially backdated due to unethical conduct. The Applicant's counsel argued that a court official confirmed the document was not on record, suggesting a cover-up. However, the Respondent's counsel presented ^a stamped copy as proofoftimely filing, which the court's electronic case management system corroborated. The court's reliance on digital records, as demonstrated in this case, instills confidence in the accuracy and integrity of legal processes. Despite striking out the respondent's late affidavit in reply, the court dismissed the applicant's motion, rejecting unsupported claims offoul play. The ruling underscores the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of legal processes and adapting to technological advancements in the management of cases.*

#### **RULING**

**[1]** The Applicant, through a motion, sought to strike out the Respondent's memorandum in reply(MIR) for being filed out of time. The supporting affidavit(SA) of Mr. Eric Eloket Esq. stated that he had spoken to Mr. Faizo Kalinzi, a court official, on the 21st of June 2024, who confirmed that the MIR was not on the Court record. The Applicant contended that Counsel for the Respondent wrote two letters; one dated 19th June 2024 seeking an extension of time to file the MIR and another dated 25th June 2024 retracting the application for extension of time because of having filed the MIR on 30th May 2024. It was suggested that the only reasonable hypothesis for the MIR on record was unethical conduct and collusion by the Court officials and the Respondent's counsel to backdate documents. Such conduct, it was said, affected the integrity, credibility and public confidence in the processes of the Court and the Judiciary as ^a whole.

- **[2]** By an affidavit in reply (AIR), Mr. Cyrus Ntende stated that the application was without merit and misconceived because the MIR had been filed within seven days of service of the notice of claim and bore a stamp of this Court dated 30th May 2024. He stated that he filed six copies of the MIR but forgot to collect them after the Registrar of this Court had endorsed them. He averred that when served with the present motion, Mr. Frederick Mpanga *Esq,* in personal conduct, had brought the matter to his attention and that Mr. Thomas Oosan *Esq,* confirmed seeking and retracting the application for extension of time. - **[3]** In their written submissions, the Applicant's Counsel submitted that the AIR had been filed outside the timeline the Court gave, *viz,* the 28lh of March 2025. We were invited to consider the application unchallenged on the authority of *Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank LtcP* and to expunge the AIR *per Byarugaba v Sanlam Life Insurance Uganda Limited².* - **[4]** Counsel for the Respondent did not file any written submissions.

#### **Decision of the Court**

- **[5]** In dispensing with this application, there are two questions: the first concerns the preliminary matter of the AIR being filed out of time, and the second relates to the substance of the application. - **[6]** Regarding the AIR, the authority of *Byarugaba* is clear. Affidavits, in interlocutory matters, should be filed within strict timelines. Further, in *Kasozi and 18 Others v Uganda Baati Limited³* this Court was emphatic. It does not countenance ^a flippant disregard for filing directions. Therefore, having issued filing directions for filing the AIR by the 28th of March 2025 in the presence of Mr. Timothy Akampurira *Esq,* for the Respondent and there being no explanation for the late filing nor an application for extension of time to file the AIR, the AIR of Mr. Cyrus Ntende sworn on the 3rd of April 2025 was filed out of time and without leave. It is hereby expunged from the record. - **[7]** Ordinarily, if the AIR is struck out, the general rule is that, unchallenged, the application should succeed. However, general rules have exceptions. In this regard, in *Babyesiza and Another v Masindi District Local Government⁴* Serunkuma J. observes that where there is no replying affidavit, the application remains unchallenged but the unchallenged application must

¹ [2010] UGCommC 41

² [2025] UGIC 12

intrinsically be tenable on its own. This means that even if the application is unchallenged, it must still be valid and reasonable on its own merits.

- [8] In the present case, Counsel for the Applicant casts aspersions on the ethical dispositions of their opposing Counsel and Court Registry Officers. The Court Registry Officers, including Mr. Faizo Kalinzi, are responsible for managing the Court Registry and ensuring the proper filing and storage of court documents. Aspersions in sworn statements are not to be taken lightly and would erode public confidence in the justice system, as correctly argued. Mr. Eloket suggests he reviewed the Court file in LDR No. 108 of 2024 in Mr. Kalinzi's presence. Mr. Kalinzi manages the Court Registry. Mr. Eloket states that he was assured there was no MIR on record. That may well be true, but for the Court's information system. - **[9]** As part of its modernisation agenda and digital transformation drive, this Court has developed an Industrial Court Case Management Information System, whose acronym (ICCMIS), resonates with the Electronic Court Case Management Information System(ECCMIS), as is now being implemented in the Judiciary. The ICCMIS is ^a digital system that allows for the electronic management of court filing records, providing ^a digital timeline for filing details and preventing alterations or backdating of documents. The system is anchored by the Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature)(Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019, which provides, under Direction 14, for electronic filing and entries into the system. The use of digital records and information systems performs an integrity check by allaying the fears expressed by Mr. Eloket in his SA. This Court has a bounden duty and must preserve the integrity of our legal and justice system. Once a query on filing timelines arises, such as in this application, a review of the ICCMIS can show a digital timeline of the filing details. For every physical filing of a document, there is an accompanying system entry, and once entered digitally, alterations and backdating in the manner suggested in this application are not envisaged. - [10] Thus, a review of the digital records and system shows that the MIR was filed on 30th May 2024. On the 31st of May 2024, at 8:39:35 a.m., an electronic entry was made into the system. That entry was preceded by an affidavit of service on 29th May 2024 and succeeded by letters to the Registrar on the 20th of June 2024. We have not been shown that this digital record has been compromised, so we cannot accept Ms. Muhereza's hypothesis of connivance and backdating. Part of the reason for modernization is that technology provides a reliable digital record, disproving the backdating claim. Indeed, in *DFCU Bank Limited v Colline Hotel Limited & Another*[5](#page-2-0) 6the Honourable Lady Justice Susan Abinyo observes the use technology for the effective, and efficient management of cases. In our estimation, one such efficient use of technology is in the present case, where a digital record outlaws innocuous practices such as backdating the filing of pleadings, as Ms. Muhereza thought might be the case. Similarly, in *Ssembatya v Walugembe^* the Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas Ocaya Ojele Rubanga reechoes

**LDR 133/2024 Kayongo v Ndcjjc University Ruling^**

<span id="page-2-0"></span>⁵ [2024] UGCommC 148

⁶ [2025] UGCommC 33 His Lordship cited *Abela and others v. Baadarani. Trinity Term* (2013) UKSC 44 and *Gray v Hurley* [2019]

the view that Courts are encouraged to take a proactive stand and adapt to the times by adopting the numerous new technologies and to dispense with antiquated court processes and procedures in relation to service of court process and buttresses these initiatives under the Directions.

- **[11]** In the present context, taking guidance from *DFCU Bank* and *Ssembatya* above, technology is one means of adjudicating the present application. The ICCMIS shows that the MIR was on the Court record by the 30thof May 2024. We do not accept Ms. Muhereza's unsupported hypothesis of foul play. A suggestion of impropriety in the manner that the Applicant propounded would require much more than simply surmising, as Mr. Eloket did in his SA. This Court's adaptation to technology is intended to avoid these pitfalls. - **[12]** For the reasons above, we are unpersuaded that the present application merits success. LDMA 133 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. As the application fails unchallenged, there is no order as to costs.

It is so ordered.

**Signed, dated and delivered at Kampala this 11th day of April 2025**

1. Hon. Adrine Namara

- 2. Hon. Susan Nabirye - 3. Hon. Michael Matovu

**11th April 2025**

**9:48 a:m**

### **Appearances:**

1. For the Applicant: Mr. Eric Eloket

2. None for the Respondent.

Court Clerk: Mr. Samuel Mukiza.

Mr. Eloket: Matter is for ruling, and we are ready to receive it.

Court: Ruling delivered in open Court.

**9:57 a.m.** Mr. Timothy Akampurira enters Court.