Wakilii

Lukiiko v China railways No. 3 Engineering group Co. Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 52 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 87 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on application to adduce additional witness statement in labour dispute proceedings
Decision
Application to adduce additional witness statement denied and statement expunged from the record

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 denied leave to adduce a witness statement filed after the scheduling conference and after the claimant closed his case. The court held that the witness statement constituted a departure from the respondent's pleadings, as the witness was not named in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum and the matters addressed in the statement were not pleaded in the Memorandum in Reply. Admitting the statement would occasion prejudice to the claimant, as parties cannot succeed on a case not set up in their pleadings.

Outcome

Application to adduce additional witness statement denied and statement expunged from the record

Facts

The respondent employer sought leave to call Mr. Sunday Deo Otim as a second witness on 29 March 2023, after the claimant had closed his case. The respondent filed Mr. Otim's witness statement in advance and served it on the claimant's counsel, submitting that the evidence had been discovered on 28 March 2023 and was essential to a just conclusion. The witness statement concerned a due diligence report dated 23 February 2023 from Sodoc Tracking Systems Investigators, commissioned by the respondent on 7 February 2023. The claimant opposed the application, arguing that the witness was not listed in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum filed on 28 September 2022, and the matters addressed were not pleaded in the Memorandum in Reply filed on 19 April 2022. The parties had been directed to file witness statements by 28 October 2022, and the hearing had commenced with the claimant examined and his case closed before the respondent sought to introduce the additional witness.

Issues

  1. Whether the witness statement of Sunday Deo Otim should be admitted in evidence after the scheduling conference and after the claimant had closed his case.

Orders

  • Leave to adduce the witness statement of Mr. Sunday Deo Otim is denied.
  • The witness statement filed upon the record is hereby expunged.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Witness Statements — Nature and Status — Distinction from Pleadings
A witness statement is not a pleading but rather evidence in proof of matters pleaded.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Late Filing — Discretion of Court
While late filing of a further witness statement should not ordinarily be refused, the court retains discretion to refuse admission where the witness was not named in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum and the matters addressed were not pleaded, particularly where the party seeking admission has not been forthright with the court.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Prejudice
A party to a suit shall not be permitted to succeed upon a case they have not set up in their pleadings, and admission of evidence constituting a departure from pleadings occasions prejudice to the opposing party.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Donna Kamuli (Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2016)
  • Hadija Mutyaba v Semogerere Bashir (High Court Civil Suit No. 0798 of 2017)
  • Hussain Hasanali Jivani v Merali Jivra Tajdin & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 471 of 2015)
  • Interfreight Forwarders Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Case No. 33 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukiiko_v_China_railways_No._3_Engineering_group_Co._Uganda_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_52_of_2022)_[2023]_UGIC_87_(26_April_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.