Wakilii

NETIS Uganda Limited v Ojom Dinga (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 102 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 86 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file reply to memorandum of claim out of time, arising from Labour Dispute Reference No. 084/2020
Decision
Applicant granted leave to file reply within 14 days with costs to respondent

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 granted the applicant leave to file a reply to the memorandum of claim out of time, despite finding that the COVID-19 pandemic was not sufficient reason for the delay. The court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to allow both parties to be heard, but awarded costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to file reply within 14 days with costs to respondent

Facts

The applicant company was served with a notice and memorandum of claim in Labour Dispute Reference No. 084/2020 through their lawyers M/s Tern Advocates, who acknowledged service. The applicant was required to file a response by 9 June 2021 but failed to do so. The applicant only served the respondent's lawyers with this application on 1 February 2022, more than 8 months later. The applicant attributed the delay to COVID-19 office closures affecting staff. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that not all staff were affected by COVID-19, no proof was provided of which staff were affected, and the delay of over 8 months was excessive and intended to frustrate the respondent's rightful claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a reply to the memorandum of claim out of time.
  2. Whether the COVID-19 pandemic and office closure constituted sufficient cause for the delay in filing.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant granted leave to file a reply within 14 days from this ruling.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Discretion of Court — Sufficient Cause
Under Rule 6 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration & Settlement) (Industrial Court Procedure) Rules 2012, the Industrial Court has jurisdiction and discretion to extend time within which to file documents out of time, and an applicant seeking such extension must furnish the court with good and sufficient cause to warrant the grant of extension.
Extension of Time — COVID-19 Pandemic — Insufficient Cause
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and office closure, without specific evidence of which staff were affected and how this prevented the filing of documents, does not constitute sufficient reason for failure to file a reply within the prescribed time.
Extension of Time — Interest of Justice — Costs
Where an applicant fails to establish sufficient cause for delay but the court grants extension of time in the interest of justice to allow both parties to be heard, the court may award costs to the respondent to compensate for the delay and inconvenience.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court) Procedure Rules 2012 Rule 6(1)
  • Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court) Procedure Rules 2012 Rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 52 Rule 3

Cases cited (1)

  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 06 of 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

NETIS_Uganda_Limited_v_Ojom_Dinga_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_102_of_2021)_[2022]_UGIC_86_(30_August_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.