Ambasisa v Roofings Rolling Mills Limited (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 50 of 2022) [2022] UGIC 51 (12 July 2022)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

LABOUR DISPUTE MISC APPLN NO 050 OF 2022

(ARISING FROM LABOUR DISPUTE REFERENCE NO. 024 OF 2019 ⁵ ARISING FROM MUKONO LABOUR COMPLAINT No. 41 OF 2018)

GIDEON AMBASISA APPLICANT

VERSUS

ROOFINGS ROLLING MILLS LIMITED RESPONDENT

BEFORE:

101. THE HON. JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSIIME MUGISHA PANELISTS

1. MS. HARRIET MUGAMBWA NGANZI

2. MR. EBYAU FIDEL

3. MR. FX MUBUUKE

V

¹⁵ RULING

BACKGROUND

This application was brought by Chamber Summons under Order 10 rules 18 and ²⁴ ofthe Civil Procedure Rules S. I ⁷¹ - 1)

For orders that: -

- ²⁰ a) That the Respondent produce the minutes ofthe disciplinary hearing held on 30 January 2018 by the Respondent in relation to the Applicant; and - b) The Costs ofthis Application be provided for.

The Respondent's did not file an Affidavit ofreply despite being served with the Application on the 1/06/2022

I i

25 The Applicants case:

The grounds of this Application are stated in the affidavit in support deponed Gideon Ambasisa are summarised as follows;

- 1. That he filed Labour Dispute Claim No. 024 of 2019 against the Respondent. - 30 2. That the Respondent filed her reply to the Memorandum of claim on 29/03/2019 and paragraph 7(i) refers to the minutes of the disciplinary committee meeting but the same were not attached as evidence. - 3. That on 16/03/2022, his Lawyers Messers Emurwon & Partners Advocates wrote to the Respondent requesting to produce a copy ofthe said minutes as evidenced in Annexure "A". - 4. That to date the Respondent has not complied with the request yet the inspection ofthe minutes is necessary for disposing fairly ofthe suit.

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant was represented by Mr. Brain Emurwon of M/s Emurwon & Partners Advocates Kampala and the Respondents were represented, by M/s Lukwago & Co. Advocates but were not present in court despite being served on 1/06/2022.

SUBMISSIONS

are 45 Only Counsel for the Applicant filed written submissions for which we grateful.

DECISION OF COURT

We have considered the application, the law applicable and the Affidavit in support and the submissions ofCounsel.

35

Order 10 rule 15 ofthe Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows:

⁵⁰ *12. Inspection ofdocuments referred to in pleadings or affidavits*

*(l)Any party to a suit may withoutfiling any affidavit, apply to courtfor an order directing any other party to suit to make discovery on oath of documents , which ore or have been in his or her possession or power, relating to any matter in question in the suit.*

*(2) on hearing ofthe application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the hearing, ifsatisfied that the discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage ofthe suit, or make sch order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion , be thought fit, except that discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the court shall be ofthe opinion that it is not necessary eitherfor disposing fairly ofthe suit orforsaving costs.*

*Rule 14. The court may at anytime during the pendencypf^a suit order the production by aypart to the suit, upon oath ofsuch doucuments in his or her possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suits, as the court shall think right... "*

*Rule 18 ofthe same order is to the effect that the applicant must show the following:*

- *i. That the document being requested is in the possession of the Respondent,* - 70 *ii. The document is relevant to the issues being tried and* - iii. *The application should not be afishing expedition.*

*We* associate ourselves with Musota J (as he then was) in Patricia Mutesi Vs Attorney General Misac Appln. No. 0912 of 2016 when he stated thus:

55

60

65

'i

*"Discovery is a category ofprocedural devices employed by a party in a civil or criminal actionpriorto trial to require the adverseparty to disclose information that is essentialfor the preparation ofthe requesting party's case and which the other parly alone knows or possesses. It is a device used to narrow the issues in a law suit or to obtain evidence not readily accessible to the applicantfor use at trial and or ascertain the existence of information that may be introduced as evidence at trial provided it is not protected by privilege.*

dispute contesting the dismissal of the Applicant, therefore the minutes of the disciplinary Hearing related to the dismissal are relevant to the complete and proper determination of the dispute. To that extent the Application satisfies the requirements under rule 18 of Order lO(supra). After carefully perusing the pleadings on the main claim LDR 024 of 2018, we established that as submitted by Counsel for the Applicant paragraph 4 of the Respondent's memorandum in reply, makes reference to minutes of a disciplinary hearing, which is proof that, the minutes are in its possession. We also established that the matter before this court in the said claim is a labour

We are therefore, inclined to agree with Counsel that, the Applicant he is entitled to have a copy ofthe minutes that led to his dismissal. Given that the Respondent did not adduce any any evidence to the contrary, having not filed an affidavit in rely, we find merit in the application. The Respondent is therefore ordered to avail the Applicant with a copy of the minutes of the disciplinary hearing which was the basis of his dismissal, within 14 days from this ruling.

No order as to Court. We so order

Delivered and signed by:

l. THE HON. JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSIIME MUGISHA

100 PANELISTS

IMS. HARRIET MUGAMBWA NGANZI

2. MR. FX MUBUUKE ^e

3. MR. FIDEL EBYAU

DATE: 12/07/2022