[2021] UGIC 40
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any justification or sufficient reason for the delay in filing the application for extension of time. The application was made one year and five months after the relevant rejoinder, which is an unreasonably long period without explanation. The absence of any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] UGIC 40
- Parties
- Applicant: MTN Uganda Limited; Respondent: Anthony Katamba
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application_struck_out
- Judges
- Katende, Panel Member, Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Tumusiime-Mugisha, J, Bwire, Panel Member, Nyacho, Panel Member
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Labour Dispute Procedure
- 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
MTN Uganda Limited
Applicant
Anthony Katamba
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason for extension of time to file the application.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted to file a surrejoinder to the respondent's memorandum in rejoinder.
- 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any justification or sufficient reason for the delay in filing the application for extension of time. The application was made one year and five months after the relevant rejoinder, which is an unreasonably long period without explanation. The absence of any explanation in the affidavit or oral submissions led the court to accept the respondent's position that the application was intended to delay the disposal of the main suit. The court held that extension of time cannot be granted without sufficient reason and that the applicant's failure to justify the delay warranted striking out the application. Costs were awarded to the respondent...
Court Disposition
application_struck_out
Orders
- The application is struck out for lack of sufficient reason for extension of time.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISC. APPLN. NO. 004 OF 2021**
## **(ARISING FROM BUSHENYI LABOUR DISPUTE No. 202/2019)**
## **BETWEEN**
**MTN UGANDA LIMITED……………………………………………………….……….. APPLICANT**
## **AND**
**ANTHONY KATAMBA ……..………………………………………………....……. RESPONDENT**
## **BEFORE**
- 1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Ntengye - 2. Hon. Lady Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha
#### **PANELISTS**
- 1. Mr. Bwire Abraham - 2. Mr. Katende Patrick - 3. Ms. Julian Nyachwo
#### **RULING**
This is an application by notice of motion under section **98 of the Civil Procedure Act, order 8 rule 11 (3), rule 18(2); Order 50 rule 6 and Order 52 Rules 1,2, &3 of** Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks that
- a) Time be enlarged for filing this application. - b) Leave be granted to the applicant to file a surre joinder to the Respondent's memorandum in rejoinder.
The application is supposed by an affidavit sworn by one Enid Edroma to the effect that the respondent filed a memorandum in rejoinder on 15/08/2019 which raised new matters in the respondent's memorandum of claim and the applicant's memorandum in reply, and that a response to the new matters by the applicant will not prejudice the respondent but will prejudice the applicant if the application is not allowed.
An affidavit in reply was sworn by Anthony Katamba, the respondent, to the effect that the application was an abuse of court process intended to delay the disposal of Labour Dispute 202/2019 having been filed one year and 5 months after the rejoinder was filed. The respondent contended in the affidavit that the pleadings were closed and the facts in the rejoinder were deemed denied and put in issue.
We have perused the notice of motion together with the affidavit in support. We have also perused the affidavit in reply. We have listened carefully in open court to oral submissions of both counsel. It is noteworthy that this application first and foremost seeks time enlargement within which to file the application. This by itself is an admission that the application is out of time. However, we do not see anything in the submissions of counsel for the applicant suggesting reasons why the application was not filed within the time allowed. It is trite law that extension of time within which to file certain documents can only be allowed if sufficient reason is shown to the court as to what prevented the applicant to take a particular step within the prescribed time. (see **James Bwogi vs KCCA and Kampala District Land Board Supreme Court Application 09/2017** As the affidavit in reply suggests this application is made 1 year and 5 months after the claimant's rejoinder was filed. In our view this is so long a time that no court would allow filing the same without sufficient reason as to why it took that long.
In the absence of any clue in the oral submissions of counsel for the applicant related to this point and in absence of any clue in the affidavit in support of the application related to extension of time, we have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit in reply that the application is intended to delay the disposal of the main suit. In any case as counsel for the respondent submitted averments in the rejoinder could be challenged in cross-examination and as the applicant's counsel intimated he will be able to argue whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the same claims. Extension of time within which to file this application is consequently disallowed with the result that the application is struck out.
Because of the failure of the applicant to point out any justification whatsoever for extension of time, costs of this application shall be payable to the respondent. Order accordingly.
#### **Delivered & Signed by:**
1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Ntengye ………………….. 2. Hon. Lady Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha …………………..
#### **PANELISTS**
1. Mr. Bwire Abraham …………………..
2. Mr. Katende Patrick ………………….. 3. Ms. Julian Nyachwo …………………..
Dated: 28/05/2021