Awor v Tororo District Local Government (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.198 of 2023) [2025] UGIC 32 (17 March 2025)


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.198 of 2023

*(Arising out of Labour Dispute Reference No. 063 Of 2016)*

AWOR JOSEPHINE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT VERSUS

TORORO DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana

Panelists: Hon. Adrine Namara, Hon. Suzan Nabirye, & Hon. Michael Matovu.

Representation:

*1. Mr. Kefa Nyambanee of M/s. Nyambane & Co. Advocates for the Applicant.

2. Ms. Juliet Topachu, Senior State Attorney, for the Respondent.*

*Case Summary:*

*The Applicant argued that her absence from court was due to a pending settlement, supported by a signed consent order, though her lawyers allegedly failed to inform her of the court date. The Respondent opposed this, claiming the consent order was mistakenly signed after the dismissal and contained an excessive sum, also raising a legal technicality regarding the notice of motion's signing. The court overruled the preliminary objection and granted the reinstatement, finding that the ongoing settlement negotiations constituted sufficient cause for the applicant's non-appearance.*

RULING

- [1] The Applicant sought this Court's determination on an application for orders of reinstatement of Labour Dispute Claim No. 63 of 2016. It was brought under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap.71,(CPA) Order 9 Rule 23 and 52 Rules ¹ and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.l 71- 1(CPR). By her supporting affidavit, the Applicant averred that she was prevented from attending Court on the day the main cause was dismissed because the matter was being settled. The Respondent had signed a consent order that had not yet been filed in court. She averred that her lawyers did not inform her of the Court fixture. - [2] The Respondents' Chief Administrative Officer, Mr Gabriel Richard Atama, opposing the application, admitted he had endorsed the consent order erroneously after the claim had been dismissed and the sum of UGX 50,000,000/= in the said consent was excessive. He said the Applicant had not shown sufficient cause.

<

- [3] In a rejoinder, the Applicant averred that Mr. Atama had executed the consent on the 16th of May 2023 before the matter was dismissed, and she was an innocent party as she thought the dispute had been settled when the consent deed was signed. - [4] It was submitted for the Applicant that her failure to appear in court was for sufficient cause.[1](#page-1-0) A consent deed had been signed, and she relied solely on her lawyers to conclude the legal processes, but her former lawyers did not do so. The Respondent did not inform the Court of the settlement and sought a dismissal. We were asked to set aside the dismissal and hear the matter on its merits. - [5] In his submissions, the Respondent raised a preliminary point of law to the effect that the notice of motion was not signed by the Judge or officer of the Court and sealed with the seal of this Court contrary to Order 5 Rule 5 CPR. - [6] Concerning the merits, the Respondent made two points: The consent deed was stamped on 30lh June 2023, while the matter was dismissed on 22nd June 2023. Secondly, the consent was entered without the Attorney General's approval, which was illegal and should be set aside. Counsel relied on *Mbale District Local Government v Samuel Weqoye Advocates[2](#page-1-1).* Therefore, the application was incompetent and ought to be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Decision

- [7] On the preliminary point, we reviewed a copy of the Court file. We find that the Registrar of this Court, Her Worship Sylvia Nabbagala Mbuga, endorsed the notice of motion on the 15th day of December 2023 and affixed the seal of this Court thereto on that day. As a result, the objection is unsustainable and is accordingly overruled. - [8] On the merits of the application, it is common cause that the mediation was taking place to resolve the dispute. Some negotiations resulted in the Applicant's reinstatement. A consent award was entered, albeit admittedly erroneous, as we agree with the clear dicta of Lubega J. in *Wegoye,* and outstanding issues were subject to further discussion. - [9] It is trite that under Order 9 rule 23 CPR, a dismissed matter may be reinstated upon sufficient cause being shown. Sufficient causes include mistakes of counsel, faults, lapses, and dilatory conduct. In this case, the Applicant's absence was due to an ongoing settlement process, which is a sufficient cause for reinstatement.[3](#page-1-2) In the present circumstances, it is quite clear that the parties had entered into negotiations to resolve those matters amicably. A consent award was drafted and executed, and it matters not whether this was erroneous because the parties believed they could resolve the dispute. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Applicant and her lawyer's absence on the 22nd of May 2023 would be due to an ongoing settlement process, and we would set aside the order of dismissal. Labour dispute Reference No. 063 of 2016 is hereby

<span id="page-1-0"></span>¹ Counsel cited *Florence Nabatanzi* vs. *Naome Binsobedde* SC C Application No. 6 of 1987 and *Okwir v Olwa Ekwaro* [2020] UGCA 2Q60 (29 June 2020) in support.

<span id="page-1-1"></span>² [2024] UGHC 257

<span id="page-1-2"></span>³ See Obote v Odora [20231 UGHC 20

reinstated to be disposed of on its merits. This means that the case will be reopened, and the parties will have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence again.

[10] It is so ordered.

*1*

Signed in chambers at Kampala this 17th day of March 2025.

Anthony WajJwire Musana, Judge, Industrial Court of Uganda

The Panelists Agree:

1. Hon. Adrine Namara,

2. Hon. Susan Nabirye &

3. Hon. Micheal Matovu.

17th March 2025 9:55 a.m

Appearances:

Ms. Martha Akurut State Attorney for the Respondent. Applicant absent.

Court Clerk: Mr. Samuel Mukiza

Ms. Akurut: ^I am not sure what the matter is for, but the Court Clerk advises it is for ruling. ^I am ready to receive the ruling

Court: Ruling delivered in open court.

10:03 a.am

Anthony Wabwir£ usana, Judge, Industria Court of Uganda.

LDR 198 of 2023AWORI J v T0R0R0 DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Ruling Anthony Wabwire Musana J 28.02.2025