Share
Alliance One Tobacco v Nsenga (Labour Dispute Application No. 83 of 2021) [2021] UGIC 48 (5 November 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGIC 48
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Namara, Panel Member, Nabirye, Panel Member, Matovu, Panel Member, Ruhinda-Ntengye, J
- Case number
- Labour Dispute Application No. 83 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Namara, Panel Member, Nabirye, Panel Member, Matovu, Panel Member, Ruhinda-Ntengye, J
- Case number
- Labour Dispute Application No. 83 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that questions of fact were material to the appeal and that the labour officer's failure to properly evaluate the evidence warranted appellate review. The absence of an affidavit in reply from the respondent was deemed a fatal omission, leaving the applicant's assertions unrebutted. Relying on established case law, the court concluded that leave to appeal should be granted to allow the appellate court to revisit the correctness of the labour officer's decision on the basis of the factual issues raised.
Court disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave to appeal on matters of fact is granted to the applicant.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Alliance One Tobacco
Applicant Counsel: M/s Nabale Shilla on brief for M/s Byarugaba Kusiima from M/S Shunubi Musoke & Co AdvocatesMoses Nsenga Rudahigwa
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Allan Bariyo and M/s Sofia Kigozi03
Procedural history
Posture
Labour Dispute Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal on matters of fact should be granted to the applicant.
- 02
Whether the absence of an affidavit in reply amounts to a lack of rebuttal of the applicant's assertions.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that questions of fact are material in reversing the Award of the labour officer and that the labour officer failed to properly evaluate the evidence, resulting in a wrong decision. The applicant relied on an affidavit in support and submitted that leave should be granted to revisit the correctness of the decision.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply and did not present arguments to rebut the applicant's assertions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
DFCU Bank Limited Vs Godfrey Muwanga Misc. Appl. 240/2018 (Land Division); Agro Supplier Ltd. Vs Uganda Development Bank, HCCS 379/2005
Failure to file an affidavit in reply where required is a fatal omission and implies no rebuttal to the application.
- 02
Section 94(2) of the Employment Act; Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act
Leave to appeal may be granted where questions of fact are material to the correctness of the decision under appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that questions of fact were material to the appeal and that the labour officer's failure to properly evaluate the evidence warranted appellate review. The absence of an affidavit in reply from the respondent was deemed a fatal omission, leaving the applicant's assertions unrebutted. Relying on established case law, the court concluded that leave to appeal should be granted to allow the appellate court to revisit the correctness of the labour officer's decision on the basis of the factual issues raised.
Obiter and limits
- The absence of an affidavit in reply is a fatal omission and implies no rebuttal to the application.
- No order as to costs is made.
Court disposition
application allowed
- Leave to appeal on matters of fact is granted to the applicant.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Industrial Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Industrial Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LABOUR DISPUTE APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2021 [ARISING FROM LC/168/1/1/156/2019]
BETWEEN
ALLIANCE ONE
TOBBACO……………………………………………….……...………..….. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MOSES NSENGA RUDAHIGWA
……...……………………………………….……….. RESPONDENT
BEFORE
1. Hon. Head Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye
PANELISTS
- 1. Ms. Adrine Namara - 2. Ms. Susan Nabirye - 3. Mr. Michael Matovu
RULING
This is an application under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 94(2) of the Employment Act and 0.52 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks an order of this court for leave to appeal on matters of fact forming part of the Award of the Labour Officer sitting at Hoima in complaint No. 168/1/156/2019.
REPRESENTATION:
The applicant was represented by M/s Nabale Shilla on brief for M/s Byarugaba Kusiima from M/S Shunubi Musoke & CO Advocates while the respondent was represented by Mr. Allan Bariyo and M/s Sofia Kigozi from a firm of advocates not disclosed on the file.
The grounds of the application are well set out in the notice of motion which is supported by an affidavit sworn by one Patricia Tukahirwa of M/s. Shonubi Musoke & Co. Advocates and a Human Resource Manager of the applicant.
The affidavit (among others) asserts that questions of fact are material in reversing the Award of the labour officer against which the Appeal has been lodged and that these facts illustrate the failure of the labour officer to properly evaluate the evidence thereby arriving at a wrong decision.
By the time this matter came up for a panel discussion, no affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent, although the applicant's submissions were on record.
Decision of court:
We have perused the Notice of Motion carefully and the affidavit in support as well as the submissions of the applicant.
In the case of DFCU Bank Limited Vs Godfrey Muwanga Misc. Appl. 240/2018 (Land Division), relying on the case of Agro Supplier Ltd. Vs Uganda Development Bank, HCCS 379/2005, the Hon. Justice Henry I. Kaweesa held that the effect of not filing an affidavit where the law requires is a fatal omission and that the absence of an affidavit in reply implies there is no rebuttal to an application.
In the instant application there is no rebuttal of the assertions in paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the application that the questions of fact are material to the appeal and that the same facts illustrate the failure of the labor officer to evaluate the evidence.
Accordingly, we agree with the submission of counsel for the applicant that leave be granted so as to revisit the correctness of the decision of the labour officer by reviewing the questions of fact. The application is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs is made.
DELIVERED & SIGNED BY:
1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye ……………………
PANELISTS
| 1. | Ms. Adrine Namara | ………………. | |----|--------------------|---------| | 2. | Ms. Susan Nabirye | ………………. | | 3. | Mr. Michael Matovu | ………………. |
Dated: 05/11/2021
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.