Diary Development Authority v Beronda (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 126 of 2022) [2023] UGIC 36 (27 February 2023)

Full Case Text

## **5** 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** - **15** 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.

**55** Each party shall bear its own costs.

Delivered and signed by:

**THE HON. AG. HEAD JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSHME MUG**

#### **PANELISTS**

**60 1. MR. BWIRE JOHN ABRAHAM 2. MR. KATENDE PATRICK 3. MS. JULIAN NYACHWO DATE: 27/02/2023**

**65**

**\***

**3**