Wakilii

Baganda and 25 Others v Mayuge Sugar Industries limited (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 65 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 87 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal arising from Labour Dispute Appeal No. 23/2020
Decision
Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Industrial Court dismissed an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. The Court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate that they had applied to the labour officer to adduce additional evidence and were denied, or that they had discovered new and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence under Order 43 Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence dismissed

Facts

The applicants filed Labour Dispute No. 2 of 2019 before the Labour Officer Mayuge District against the respondent. The Labour Officer initially conducted mediation on 24 September 2019, which failed to achieve settlement. The applicants alleged that the Labour Officer then decided to arbitrate the matter and proceeded ex parte when the respondent failed to appear at subsequent hearings, ultimately delivering an award in the applicants' favour. The respondent appealed. In a prior ruling (MA 158/2020), the Industrial Court granted the applicants leave to file their appeal out of time and found that the Labour Officer had erred by arbitrating the matter when he had initially entertained it as mediation. The applicants then sought leave to adduce fresh evidence (a summons for the proceedings of 24 September 2019) in the pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal should be granted to the Applicants.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Requirements for Leave
An appellate court may exercise its discretion to admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances, including where new and important evidence is discovered which, after due diligence, was not within the knowledge of or could not have been produced by the party at the time of the suit, and where such evidence is relevant, credible, and would probably influence the result of the case.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Burden of Proof
A party seeking leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal must demonstrate that the lower court denied leave to adduce the evidence, or that new and important matters of evidence have been discovered which could not have been produced earlier, and must attach proof of the evidence sought to be given to the supporting affidavit.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Bismillah Trading Limited v Falcom Estates Limited (Civil Appeal Court Application No. 328 of 2018)
  • Makubuya Enock William t/a Polly Post v Bulam Muwanga Kibirige t/a Kowloon Garment Industry (Civil Application No. 133 of 2014)
  • Mayuge Sugar Industries Ltd v Baganda Julius William and 25 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Baganda_and_25_Others_v_Mayuge_Sugar_Industries_limited_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_65_of_2021)_[2022]_UGIC_87_(27_October_2022)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.