Barclays Bank of Uganda v Mariam Omono (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2018)
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
Held that where a labour claim was filed in 2012, referred to the Industrial Court in 2014, and the claimant took no step to prosecute it for over six years, the claim is ripe for dismissal under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution.
Outcome
Labour claim dismissed for want of prosecution
Facts
Labour Dispute Claim No. 132/2014 was originally filed in the High Court on 8 April 2012. In 2014, the High Court referred the claim to the Industrial Court. From 2014 onwards, the claimant took no step towards prosecuting the claim. Barclays Bank of Uganda, the respondent in the underlying labour dispute, applied to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution, citing that it was one of the cases causing backlog. The application was supported by an affidavit from the bank's counsel.
Issues
- Whether the labour claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution where no step has been taken by the claimant for more than two years.
Orders
- Labour Dispute Claim No. 132/2014 dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 s.8(2)
- Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 s.40
- Civil Procedure Rules O.17 r.4
- Civil Procedure Rules O.17 r.6
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.