Wakilii

Okello and 7 Others v Abacus Parenteral Drugs Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 17 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for unconditional leave to amend plaint arising from Civil Suit No. 25 of 2020
Decision
Application granted with leave to amend plaint within 15 days; respondent granted leave to amend defence within 15 days of service; preliminary objection dismissed

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 High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution to hear employment-related matters that include tortious claims arising from the employment relationship, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. The concurrent jurisdiction of the Industrial Court does not oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. An application for leave to amend pleadings should be granted where it clarifies claims without introducing a new cause of action, advances justice, and does not prejudice the opposing party. Delay alone is not grounds for refusal unless prejudice is demonstrated.

Outcome

Application granted with leave to amend plaint within 15 days; respondent granted leave to amend defence within 15 days of service; preliminary objection dismissed

Facts

Eight applicants, former employees of the respondent company, filed Civil Suit No. 25 of 2020 seeking compensation for unfair termination, unpaid overtime, transport allowance, severance allowance, and relief based on duress in signing a release and discharge form. The plaint was originally drafted in general terms because some documentary evidence (pay slips) was unavailable. After obtaining bank statements and legal advice, the applicants sought leave to amend the plaint to specify each applicant's individual claim. The respondent opposed, arguing the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose from employment and should be heard first by the Labour Officer and then the Industrial Court, and that the proposed amendment introduced a new cause of action and was brought as an afterthought two years after filing. The respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the application and Civil Suit No. 25 of 2020.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted unconditional leave to amend the plaint in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2020.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Application for leave to amend plaint allowed.
  • Applicants granted unconditional leave to file and serve amended plaint within 15 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Respondent may file amended written statement of defence within 15 days from service of amended plaint.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of Courts — High Court — Unlimited Original Jurisdiction under Article 139(1)
The High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction in all matters under Article 139(1) of the Constitution and section 14 of the Judicature Act, which is not ousted by the concurrent jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in employment matters.
Jurisdiction — Claims in Tort Arising from Employment Relationship — Section 93(6) Employment Act
Where an employment-related claim includes a claim in tort arising out of the employment relationship, the Labour Officer has no jurisdiction under section 93(6) of the Employment Act, and the matter may be brought directly before a court of competent jurisdiction including the High Court.
Industrial Court — Status and Jurisdiction — Subordinate Court
The Industrial Court is a subordinate court established by Parliament under Article 129(1)(d) of the Constitution. Its jurisdiction is limited to appellate matters and referrals from the Labour Officer. The concurrent jurisdiction of the Industrial Court with the High Court does not oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court.
Supremacy of the Constitution — Article 2(2) — Conflict Between Constitutional Provisions and Other Laws
Where the Constitution gives the High Court unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1), any interpretation of statute that seeks to oust that jurisdiction is inconsistent with the Constitution and must yield to the Constitution under Article 2(2).
Amendment of Pleadings — Principles — Order 6 Rule 19 CPR
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage allow amendment of pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy. An amendment should not work injustice to the other side, should avoid multiplicity of proceedings, should not substitute one cause of action for another, and should not be malafide or prohibited by law. An injury compensable by costs is not treated as an injustice.
Amendment of Pleadings — Delay — Prejudice
Delay in bringing an application to amend pleadings is not in itself grounds for refusing the amendment unless the respondent demonstrates actual prejudice. Where no prejudice is shown and the matter has not yet proceeded to hearing, amendments to clarify and particularise claims should be freely allowed.
Amendment of Pleadings — New Orders vs New Cause of Action
The introduction of additional orders or reliefs particularising existing claims does not constitute the introduction of a new cause of action where the underlying factual and legal basis remains the same. An amendment that clarifies and specifies claims previously stated in general terms should be allowed to advance justice.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (12)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • DFCU Bank Limited v Donna Kimuli (Civil Application No. 29 of 2019)
  • Engineer John Eric Mugyenzi v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 096 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Joseph Tumushabe (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2005)
  • Justice Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2016)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene [1990-1994] EA 88
  • Lubowa Gyaviira & others v Makerere University (HCMA No. 47 of 2009)
  • City Aluminum & Glass Services Ltd v Barclays Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 884 of 2020)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd (SCCA No. 26 of 2010)
  • Ntungamo District Local Council v John Karazarwe [1997] 3 KALR 52
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
  • Trans-Drakensberg Bank Limited v. Combined Engineering & Anor, [1967] 4 All SA (D)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okello and 7 Others v Abacus Parenteral Drugs Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 17 (25 January 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.