Download

Uganda Judgment

Industrial Court of Uganda

Kateyo v Makerere University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 187 of 2019) [2021] UGIC 35 (17 September 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the award of interest is discretionary and must be justified by the claimant. The claimant failed to adhere to the agreed timelines for filing submissions, and the respondent did not file any submissions. The absence of both parties' submissions at the time of the court's discussion, coupled with the claimant's unexplained delay, led the court to conclude that interest was not warranted. The monetary award had already been paid into the claimant's account, and the court was not persuaded that interest was necessary. Therefore, no interest accrues on the settled amount.

Court disposition

interest denied; no order as to costs

Orders

  • No interest accrues on the settled amount already paid into the claimant's account.
  • No order as to costs is made.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kateyo Eliezer Mujugwa

Claimant Counsel: Nankya Sumaya

Makerere University

Respondent Counsel: Natukunda Phiona

Amounts and remedies

  • Settled Retirement Benefits Amount: UGX 35,096,621

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Labour Dispute Reference / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The claimant argued for the award of interest on the settled sum of 35,096,621/=, asserting entitlement due to delayed payment and referencing the timelines agreed for submissions. The claimant submitted late, on 08/09/2021, and maintained that interest should be granted as part of the retirement benefits.
Respondent
The respondent did not file submissions by the agreed timeline of 20/08/2021. No argument from the respondent was on record at the time of the court's decision.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Act

    The award of interest by the court is discretionary and depends on whether the successful party deserves it.

  2. 02

    Uganda Revenue Authority Vs Stephen Mabosi SCCA 1/1996

    The burden is on the claimant to establish entitlement to interest.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the award of interest is discretionary and must be justified by the claimant. The claimant failed to adhere to the agreed timelines for filing submissions, and the respondent did not file any submissions. The absence of both parties' submissions at the time of the court's discussion, coupled with the claimant's unexplained delay, led the court to conclude that interest was not warranted. The monetary award had already been paid into the claimant's account, and the court was not persuaded that interest was necessary. Therefore, no interest accrues on the settled amount.

Obiter and limits

  • Allowing discussions outside the timetables would have meant postponing judgement not at the instance of the court but at the instance of the unexplained delay of the claimant to file submissions.
  • The court felt uncomfortable discussing the claimant's submissions in the absence of the respondent's submissions.

Court disposition

interest denied; no order as to costs

  • No interest accrues on the settled amount already paid into the claimant's account.
  • No order as to costs is made.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Industrial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2021] UGIC 35

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

LABOUR DISPUTE REFERENCE NO. 187 OF 2019

[ARISING FROM KCCA/LC/047/2019]

BETWEEN

KATEYO ELIEZER MUJUGWA….………………………………………….……...………..….. CLAIMANT

VERSUS

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY ……...………………………………………………….……….. RESPONDENT

BEFORE

1. Hon. Head Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye

PANELISTS

- 1. Mr. Bwire John Abraham - 2. Ms. Julian Nyachwo - 3. Mr. Patrick Katende

RULING

Background

The claimant filed a memorandum of claim in this court on 12/7/2019 claiming 226,884,010/= as retirement benefits. Subsequently, on 17/02/2020 the parties settled out of Court in the sum of 35,096,621/= although they disagreed on whether or not interest should be paid.

This ruling is therefore to decide whether or not interest is payable and if so at what rate and from which date?

Decision

On 11/05/2021 M/s. Nankya Sumaya appeared for the claimant while M/s. Natukunda Phiona appeared for the respondent.

Both counsel agreed on time lines to file submissions date and the timelines were as follows:

The claimant was to have filed by 16/08/2021 while the respondent was to have filed by 20/08/2021 a rejoinder by the claimant was to have been filed by 08/09/2021.

The quorum of the court was to sit on 10/9/2021 to discuss the submissions and reach a decision. The ruling was to be delivered on 17/09/2021.

Despite the above timelines proposed and agreed to by both counsel, nothing was on the record by 16/08/2021.

By 10th September in the morning hours when this court sat to discuss the submissions only claimant's submissions were on file having been filed on 08/09/2021 3 weeks late. Understandably the respondent's submissions were not on file. We did not take interest in looking at the claimant's submissions because of the dilatory delay to file the same and subsequent absence of the respondent's submissions on file.

The award of interest by the court is a discretionary matter. Interest can only be awarded if in the discretion of the court the successful party deserves it. This is the essence of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is also the ruling of the court in Uganda Revenue Authority Vs Stephen Mabosi SCCA 1/1996.

It was upon the claimant to establish the need of this court to grant him interest.

The fact that he ignored the timelines agreed in court, in our view indicated that the award of interest was not as necessary as the monetary award already paid into his account. We felt uncomfortable discussing the claimant's submissions in the absence of the respondent's submissions having realized that the claimant filed on 8/09/2021 instead of 16/08/2021 and the discussion having taken place as per schedule on 10/9/2021.

Allowing discussions outside the timetables would have meant postponing judgement not at the instance of the court but at the instance of the unexplained delay of the claimant to file submissions. In our view this was not acceptable. Accordingly in the discretion of this court, we hold that in the absence of both submissions on the file as we discussed the matter, and given that the claimant had a burden to prove his entitlement to interest, No interest accrues at all on the settled amount and already paid into the claimant's accounts.

No order as to costs is made.

Delivered & signed by:

1. Hon. Head Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye …………….

PANELISTS

- 1. Mr. Bwire John Abraham ……………………. - 2. Ms. Julian Nyachwo …………………….

3. Mr. Patrick Katende …………………….

Dated: 17/09/2021

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Uganda Revenue Authority Vs Stephen Mabosi SCCA 1/1996

Case cited

Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.