Wakilii

Shetty Manoj Vasu v Shetty Foto Fast Limited (Miscellaneous Application 105 of 2023)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 74 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend memorandum of claim arising from Labour Dispute Reference No. 116 of 2021
Decision
Application granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings

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 leave to amend the memorandum of claim to include a claim for monies allegedly recovered by the Respondent's Managing Director. The Court held that the Respondent had brought the monies into issue through its witness statement, and that granting the amendment would enable wholesome resolution of all questions in controversy. The defences of limitation and malafides were rejected, as limitation could be raised at trial and the amendment was a response to evidence introduced by the Respondent rather than bad faith.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for filing of amended pleadings

Facts

The Applicant sought leave to amend his memorandum of claim in an underlying labour dispute to include a claim for UGX 15,200,000 and USD 1,200, which he alleged the Respondent's Managing Director recovered from his bag in 2007. The Applicant contended that the Respondent's Managing Director admitted to keeping the money in his witness statement. The Respondent opposed the application, arguing it was brought sixteen years after the alleged retention, was barred by limitation, was malafide, and was an afterthought brought after reviewing the Respondent's evidence. The Respondent's Managing Director had raised the matter of recovery of the monies in paragraph 20 of his witness statement in the underlying labour dispute.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has demonstrable grounds for a grant of leave to amend his memorandum of claim to include a claim for monies allegedly recovered by the Respondent's Managing Director.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend his memorandum of claim.
  • The amended memorandum of claim shall be filed in Court within seven days from the date of this order.
  • The Respondent shall file a reply within seven days from the amended claim's service date.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
Amendments to pleadings are allowed by courts so that the real question in controversy between the parties is determined and justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities, provided the amendment does not work injustice to the other side, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, is not made malafide, and is not prohibited by law.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court Jurisdiction — Holistic Resolution of Labour Disputes
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction under Section 8(1)(b) and 8(2) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act to adjudicate on all labour disputes referred to it including claims for general, special and punitive damages which come under any other law, and labour disputes ought to be resolved holistically rather than partially.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Matters Raised by Opposing Party
Where a matter is raised by the opposing party in their witness statement, granting leave to amend pleadings to address that matter does not constitute injustice to the opposing party, as they introduced the issue into the proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Defence of Limitation
The defence of limitation remains available to a party up to the final determination of the case and does not preclude the grant of leave to amend pleadings, as the defence can be raised and determined at trial.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Okello Wilbert v Obel Ronald (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 157 of 2017)
  • Engineer John Eric Mugyenzi v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2018)
  • Avram Avivi v SBI International Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 208 of 2021)
  • Joseph Kalule v GIZ (Labour Dispute Reference No. 109 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shetty_Manoj_Vasu_v_Shetty_Foto_Fast_Limited_(Miscellaneous_Application_105_of_2023)_[2023]_UGIC_74_(16_August_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.