Wakilii

Bugema Adventist Secondary School v Namuleme (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 153 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 92 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications for extension of time to file replies to memoranda of claims in labour dispute references
Decision
Extension of time granted to file replies within seven days

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 the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing replies to memoranda of claims where the applicant's former counsel failed to file the necessary pleadings despite being instructed and paid. The mistake or omission of counsel ought not to be visited on the litigant. Extension of time granted to file replies within seven days.

Outcome

Extension of time granted to file replies within seven days

Facts

The applicant, Bugema Adventist Secondary School, instructed M/S Akampurira & Partners to file replies to memoranda of claims in six labour dispute references filed by former staff members. When the matters came up for pre-session, the applicant discovered that their former lawyers had not filed any replies despite being instructed and paid. The applicant immediately instructed alternative counsel, M/S Kibojana, Kakuba & Co Advocates, who filed consolidated applications for extension of time to file the replies. The respondents did not file affidavits in reply or written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing replies to memoranda of claims within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether the mistake or omission of the applicant's former counsel constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.

Orders

  • The consolidated applications stand unopposed.
  • The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the necessary replies to the memoranda of claim.
  • The mistake of counsel ought not to be visited on the litigant.
  • The applicant is directed to file replies to Labour Dispute References No. 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331 all of 2019 within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the references.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Mistake of Counsel
The mistake or omission of counsel, even if negligent, constitutes sufficient cause for granting an extension of time to file pleadings and ought not to be visited on the litigant.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court Procedure — Extension of Time — Application Under Rule 6(1)
Under Rule 6(1) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court Procedure) Rules 2012, a party who fails to file documents within the prescribed time may apply to the court for extension of time, and the court may determine the application as it deems fit under Rule 6(2).
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Uncontested Facts — Presumption of Acceptance
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (10)

  • ABC Capital Bank Ltd v A-1 Industries Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1059 of 2016)
  • Hajati Safina Nababi v Yafesi Lule (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Zamu Nalumansi v Sulaiman Lule (Civil Application No. 2 of 1992)
  • James Bwogi v KCCA and KDLB (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2017)
  • MTN (U) Ltd v Anthony Katamba (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 004 of 2021)
  • Crane Finance Co. Ltd Vs Makerere Properties, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. of 2001
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Ssemanda Paul and Another v Nakato Lukwago Joyce and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 50 of 2019)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bugema_Adventist_Secondary_School_v_Namuleme_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_153_of_2022)_[2022]_UGIC_92_(11_November_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.