[2018] UGIC 38
Although the law discourages general and evasive denials and requires specificity in pleadings, the court found that the respondent's reply addressed the allegations in the memorandum of claim sufficiently. Striking out the defense and entering judgment for the claimant would violate the respondent's constitutional...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] UGIC 38
- Parties
- Claimant: Ssebowa Ivan; Respondent: Uganda Development Bank Ltd
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Labour Dispute Claim 13 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Dispute Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary_objections_overruled
- Judges
- Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Tumusiime-Mugisha, J
- Legal Topics
- Frivolous Pleadings, Evasive Denials, Right to Be Heard, Preliminary Objections
- 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
Ssebowa Ivan
Claimant
Uganda Development Bank Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Dispute Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's reply to the memorandum of claim is frivolous and vexatious.
- 2 Whether general and evasive denials in the respondent's reply warrant striking out the defense and entering judgment for the claimant.
- 3 Whether striking out the defense would contravene the constitutional right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the law discourages general and evasive denials and requires specificity in pleadings, the court found that the respondent's reply addressed the allegations in the memorandum of claim sufficiently. Striking out the defense and entering judgment for the claimant would violate the respondent's constitutional right to be heard. The court declined to uphold the preliminary objections and overruled them, allowing the matter to proceed to a hearing on its merits.
Court Disposition
preliminary_objections_overruled
Orders
- Preliminary objections raised by the claimant are overruled.
- The matter will be heard on its merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA LABOUR DISPUTE CLAIM NO. 013 OF 2016 (ARISING FROM HCT-CS NO. 176 of 2016)**
### **BETWEEN**
## **SSEBOWA IVAN CLAIMANT**
#### **AND**
#### **UGANDA DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD RESPONDENT**
#### **BEFORE**
- 1. The Hon. Chief Judge, Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye - 2. The Hon. Judge, Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha
#### **PANELISTS**
- 1. Ms. Adrine Namara - 2. Mr. Anthony Wanyama - 3. Mr. Micheal Matovu
#### **RULING**
Mr. Banturaki, counsel for the claimant raised <sup>2</sup> preliminary points of law in writing and filed the same on 05/12/2017.
On 5/2/2018 Mr. Anyuru appeared on brief for Ms. Aida Wada for respondent and it was agreed that the respondent would reply by 12/2/2018. By the time of this ruling no reply was filed and we decided to deliberate on the points of law and make a decision.
According to counsel for the claimant, the respondent's reply to the claimant's memorandum of claim was riddled with general and evasive denials and was frivolous and vexatious and he prayed this court to enter judgment (or award) under order 6 rule 30(1) CPR.
We agree with the submissions of counsel for the claimant as to the law relating to frivolous and vexatious pleadings and as to the provisions of order 6 rule 8 that each denial in <sup>a</sup> reply ought to be specific.
*We* agree also that under order 6 rule 10 CPR evasive denials are discouraged.
However it as our considered opinion that the reply to the memorandum of claim specifically ensures each allegation as set out in the paragraphs mentioned therein is answered.
Striking out the defense and entering judgment for the claimant in our view will tantamount to condemning the respondent without being heard which is in contravention of the provisions of the constitutional right of <sup>a</sup> person to be heard. The claimant will be at liberty to address the court in final submissions about the frivolous and vexatious nature of the pleadings of the respondent to which the respondent will as well reply so that this court will be in position to issue a well balanced decision.
*\N<sup>q</sup>* therefore decline to uphold the preliminary objections which are hereby overruled. The matter will be heard on its merits.
#### Signed by:
1. The Hon. Chief Judge, Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye 2. The Hon. Judge, Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha
**/I.-L-**
# Panelists
- 1. Ms. Adrine Namara - 2. Mr. Anthony Wanyama - 3. Mr. Micheal Matovu
Dated: <2.^.../