Share
Namusoke v Cairo International Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2020) [2022] UGIC 31 (21 February 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGIC 31
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Katende, Panel Member, Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Bwire, Panel Member, Nyacho, Panel Member
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Katende, Panel Member, Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Bwire, Panel Member, Nyacho, Panel Member
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found no mistake apparent on the face of the record in its previous decision regarding the applicant's resignation notice. The applicant failed to file submissions or substantiate the alleged error. The respondent's submissions were accepted, and the court held that the requirements for review were not met. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent, as the applicant's failure to defend the application resulted in unnecessary legal expense for the respondent.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Victoria Namusoke Kawoya
Applicant Counsel: Mr. BanturakiCairo International Bank
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Kyateka IvanAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded to Respondent: UGX 0
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the court's award.
- 02
Whether the applicant's notice of resignation was effectively withdrawn or replaced.
- 03
Whether the application for review has merit in the absence of submissions by the applicant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought a review of the court's award, alleging a mistake apparent on the face of the record regarding the handling of her resignation notice. However, the applicant did not file any written submissions to support her claim or clarify the alleged error.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, relying on the Supreme Court's definition of such errors. The respondent maintained that the court's finding regarding the applicant's resignation notice was correct and that the application lacked merit, especially since the applicant failed to defend it.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Edison Kanyabwera Vs Pastori Tumwebaze SCCA No. 6/2004
An error apparent on the face of the record must be evident and not require extraneous matter to establish its incorrectness.
- 02
Section 82(b) Civil Procedure Act; Order 46 rule 1(b) and rule 8 Civil Procedure Rules
Review of a court's award is only permissible where a clear mistake is shown on the record.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found no mistake apparent on the face of the record in its previous decision regarding the applicant's resignation notice. The applicant failed to file submissions or substantiate the alleged error. The respondent's submissions were accepted, and the court held that the requirements for review were not met. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent, as the applicant's failure to defend the application resulted in unnecessary legal expense for the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant's neglect to file submissions undermined her case and justified the award of costs to the respondent.
- Jurisdictional objections must be substantiated by timely submissions; failure to do so leads to their dismissal.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- The application for review is dismissed.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
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 MISC. APPL. NO.003 OF 2020 ARISING FROM LDA NO. 004/2019 & KCCA NO. 199/18
VICTORIA NAMUSOKE KAWOYA……………………………………….………….. APPLICANT VERSUS CAIRO INTERNATIONAL BANK ……………………………..…………......... RESPONDENT
BEFORE
1. The Hon. Head Judge, Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye
Panelists
- 1. Mr. Bwire John Abraham - 2. Ms. Julian Nyachwo - 3. Mr. Patrick Katende
RULING
This application was made under Section 82 (b) Civil Procedure Act, Order 46 rule 1(b) and rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
It sought an order of review of the Award of this court in Labour dispute Appeal No. 004/2019.
The grounds of the application were set out in the application and an affidavit in support of the application was sworn by Victoria Namusoke, the applicant.
An affidavit in reply was sworn by one Stella Ladona Wattanga on behalf of the respondent.
Representations:
The applicant was represented by Mr. Banturaki of M/s. Banturaki & Co. Advocates while the respondent was represented by Mr. Kyateka Ivan of M/s. Tumusiime Kabega & Co. advocates.
When the matter came up for hearing on 15/09/2021, counsel for the applicant in open court sought to raise a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of this court. Court granted timelines for submissions but no submissions were forthcoming. The court made a ruling on 08/11/2021 overruling the objection.
On 20/8/2021, this matter came up once again in open court and court gave time lines for written submissions. Although the applicant did not file any submission, the respondent filed submissions in time.
Decision of court:
We have carefully read and internalized both the application, the affidavit in support as well as the affidavit in reply. We have internalized the submissions of the respondent. We accept the submission of counsel for the respondent that in matters of review there must be an error apparent on the face of the record and as the Supreme Court held in Edison Kanyabwera Vs Pastori Tumwebaze SCCA No. 6/2004 that "it must be an error apparent on the face of the record, an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness."
We have once again internalized our decision in LDA No. 004/2019 and we do not find any mistake apparent on the face of the record.
In the absence of a submission on the mistake apparent on the face of the record, we have no reason to disbelieve the respondent in his submission that there was no mistake in the finding of this court that the applicant's notice of resignation of 26/1/2018 was withdrawn and replaced with the notice of 30th January 2018 but did not revoke the resignation.
Accordingly, the application has no merits and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent, particularly because the applicant having filed the application neglected or failed to defend it putting the respondent at legal expense for apparently no reason.
Delivered & signed by:
| 1. | The Hon. Head<br>Judge, Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye | ……………… | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------| | Panelists | | | | 1. | Mr. Bwire John Abraham | ……………………. | | 2. | Ms. Julian Nyachwo | ……………………. | | 3. | Mr. Patrick Katende | ……………………. |
Dated: 21/02/2022
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.