Wakilii

F.X. Mubuuke v Uganda National Association of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 86 of 2016)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 49 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to additional witness statements filed by the claimant in a labour dispute reference
Decision
Respondent's objection sustained in principle but relief of striking out denied; Respondent permitted to file rebuttal witness statements; matter to proceed to hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that while the Respondent's objection to the Claimant's additional witness statements had merit, the statements would not be struck out. The Court found that the additional witness statements were filed outside Court directions and likely constituted rebuttals, which was prejudicial. However, given that no scheduling conference had occurred and the Respondent itself had filed its witness statement late and in default of Court directions, the Court permitted the Respondent to file rebuttal witness statements within 14 days. The Court affirmed that the Civil Procedure Rules apply to witness statements in the Industrial Court where there is a lacuna in the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act and its Rules.

Outcome

Respondent's objection sustained in principle but relief of striking out denied; Respondent permitted to file rebuttal witness statements; matter to proceed to hearing

Facts

The Claimant filed a labour dispute reference in 2016. The Court directed witness statements to be filed by specific dates in 2019. The Claimant filed a witness statement in August 2018. The Respondent repeatedly failed to file its witness statement despite undertakings and Court directions. The Respondent eventually filed a witness statement on 22 October 2019, well outside the Court's timelines. After receiving the Respondent's witness statement, the Claimant filed additional witness statements on 31 October 2019 and 9 December 2019. In April 2023, the Respondent sought leave to file a fresh witness statement due to the death of its original witness and objected to the Claimant's additional witness statements, arguing they were improper rebuttals filed after reviewing the Respondent's evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the additional witness statements filed by the Claimant after the Respondent filed its witness statement should be struck out.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained but additional witness statements not struck out.
  • Respondent granted leave to file rebuttal witness statements within 14 days from 19 October 2023.
  • Claim to be set down for hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Application of Civil Procedure Rules to Industrial Court Proceedings
Although the Industrial Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence under Section 18(1) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006, it may resort to the Civil Procedure Rules where there is a lacuna in the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Industrial Court Rules 2012, and the Civil Procedure Rules are therefore relevant and applicable to witness statements in Industrial Court proceedings.
Evidence — Witness Statements — Concurrent Filing and Preservation of Credibility
Concurrent filing of witness statements preserves the credibility of testimony and witnesses and avoids prejudice; the practice of reviewing the opposite party's witness statement before filing one's own statement is unethical and prejudicial as it gives one party an undue advantage in rebutting evidence while the other party does not enjoy a right of rebuttal.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Compliance with Court Directions
Court orders regarding the filing of witness statements must be obeyed as ordered unless set aside or varied; allowing Court orders to be ignored with impunity would destroy the authority of judicial orders, which is the heart of all judicial systems.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Amendments and Corrections
Corrections to witness statements under Order 18 Rule 5A(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules are limited to typographical, arithmetic, or other errors that do not go to the substance of the testimony; the rationale is not to alter evidence or plug perceived holes after reviewing the opposite party's witness statements.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court Procedure — Informal Approach to Evidence
Evidence in labour matters ought to be freely given and received; the legislature intended to provide a less formal approach to labour justice, and the Industrial Court is entitled to receive evidence submitted before it and determine its relevance, materiality, and weight, rooting this informal approach in social equity and substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities as set out in Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Discretion to Permit Late Filing and Rebuttal
Where witness statements are filed outside Court directions but no scheduling conference has been held, the Court may exercise discretion to permit the filing of rebuttal witness statements rather than striking out the impugned statements, particularly where the objecting party itself filed its witness statement late and in default of Court directions.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Seruwagi Mohamed v Yuasa Investment Ltd (H.C. Civil Suit No. 334 of 2013)
  • Harriet Amony v Madhvani Group Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2019)
  • Autotune Engineering v Barozi Swaldo (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2022)
  • Justus Kahabwa v China Henan International Cooperation Group Co Ltd (H.C. Civil Suit No. 721 of 2020)
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal and 3 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2004)
  • Yusuf Baliruno v CBS (Labour Dispute Reference No. 092 of 2020)
  • Lubega Moses & 5 Others v Roofings Uganda Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 166 of 2020)
  • Moro Charles v Greenhill Secondary School (Labour Dispute Reference No. 10 of 2021)
  • Joseph Kalule v GIZ LDR 109
  • Hadija Mutyaba v Ssemogerere Bashir & 2 Others (H.C. Civil Suit No. 0798 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

F.X._Mubuuke_v_Uganda_National_Association_of_Building_and_Civil_Engineering_Contractors_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_86_of_2016)_[2023]_UGIC_49_(5_October_2023)
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.