Ssebowa Ivan v Uganda Development Bank Limited (Labour Dispute Claim 13 of 2016)

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.

Holding

The Industrial Court declined to strike out the respondent's reply despite allegations of general and evasive denials. The court held that striking out the defence would violate the constitutional right to be heard, and that the adequacy of pleadings could be addressed in final submissions.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The claimant filed a labour dispute claim against Uganda Development Bank Limited. The claimant's counsel raised two preliminary points of law alleging that the respondent's reply to the memorandum of claim contained general and evasive denials and was frivolous and vexatious. Counsel sought to have judgment entered under Order 6 Rule 30(1) CPR. The respondent was given time to reply but filed no response by the date of the ruling.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's reply to the memorandum of claim was frivolous and vexatious warranting striking out under Order 6 Rule 30(1) CPR.
2. Whether the respondent's denials were general and evasive in contravention of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 CPR.

Orders

• Preliminary objections overruled.
• Matter to be heard on its merits.
• Claimant at liberty to address the court on the nature of respondent's pleadings in final submissions.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 30(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 10

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