Ssebowa Ivan v Uganda Development Bank Limited (Labour Dispute Claim 13 of 2016) [2018] UGIC 38 (26 March 2018)

# **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.^.../