Uganda Clays Limited v Buyondo and 113 others (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2022) [2022] UGIC 53 (20 December 2022)

⁵ THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

LABOUR DISPUTE: MISCELLANOUS APPLICATION No.097 OF 2022

ARISING FROM LABOUR REFERENCE NO. 305/2019

ARISING FROM LD.19.06.19

io UGANDA CLAYS LIMITED APPLICANT

VERSUS

BUYONDO MIKE AND 113 OTHERS RESPONDENT

BEFORE:

1. THE HON. AG. HEAD JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSIIME MUGISHA 15 PANELISTS

1. MR. CHARLES WACHA ANGULO

2. MS. BEATRICE ACIRO OKENY

3. MS. ROSE GIDONGO

RULING

- ²⁰ This is an application brought by notice of motion under Rule ⁵ of the Judicature the Appeal against the decision on Preliminary Objections that they were raised in the Industrial Court and resolved in the Respondent's favour. It also seeks for costs (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10), seeking this Court's order to stay proceedings in Labour Dispute reference No. 305 of 2019, pending determination of - ²⁵ ofthe Application.

REPRESENTATION:

The applicant was represented by Ms. Kanyunuzi Jennifer of LEX Advocates & Solicitors, Kampala, while the Respondent is represented by Mr. Albert Mukasa M&K Advocates, Kampala.

30 The grounds ofthe application are set out in the notice ofmotion which is supported by an affidavit sworn by a one Regina Nantumbwe, the Human Resources Administrator ofthe Applicant.

According to the affidavit in support of this application, the Applicant filed as Appeal in the Court ofAppeal, which ifallowed would affect the entire claim by the

35 respondent's therefore in the interest ofjustice the proceedings should be stayed until its determination.

That the Respondent's claim involves more than Ugx.2,000,000,000/-, which if awarded to them by this Court could cripple the Applicant, therefore the Appeal is intended to protect the Applicant from this frivolous Claim, therefore the proceedings should be stayed to enable the Applicant prosecute the Appeal.

40

That allowing the proceedings to continue would deny the Applicant a right to a fair hearing in the Court of Appeal and undermine the Appeal. Therefore, the orders sought should be granted to safeguard the Appeal

45 50 The Respondents, in their Affidavit in reply sworn by a one Nabuduwa Betty one of the Respondents, contended that, the application was misconceived, frivolous and an abuse ofCourt process, because after the issuance of a ruling on 21/03/2021, by this court against a preliminary Objection the Applicant raised under the main Claim, she lodged an Appeal on 4/06/2022, without seeking leave of Court, as provided by law and the Appeal was against the dismissal ofPreliminary Objections raised under the main claim, Labour Dispute Reference 305/2019. According to her the application was made in bad faith with the intention of derailing and delaying the disposal ofthe main Claim, which was scheduled for hearing from 20th to 23rd December 2023 and therefore it should be dismissed with costs.

DECISION OF COURT

60

55 We have carefully considered the Notice of Motion, the affidavits in support and in opposition ofthe application, together with the submissions ofboth Counsel and find as follows.:

This application was brought under Rule ⁵ ofthe Judicature (Court ofAppeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10, which provides for extension of time and not to stay of proceedings. This notwithstanding, it is our considered opinion that, for such an application to succeed the applicant should show sufficient cause to move Court to stay its proceedings in a matter.

65 70 The Applicant in this case averred that the continuation of the proceedings in the main suit would case an injustice to the Applicant or would act as an oppression in defending its appeal against this courts orders against a preliminary Objection raised under the same suit. However save for a notice of intention to appeal, which in our considered opinion is not sufficient cause for a stay ofproceedings, the applicant did not furnish any other evidence to indicate that an appeal was actually pending before the Court of Appeal to warrant a stay of proceedings in the main suite. We further do not associate ourselves with the submission by Counsel for the Applicant that the delay in securing a record ofproceedings was sufficient reason for its failure to apply for leave to appeal. Section... oftheLADASA provides that an appeal to the Court ofappeal shall be lodged within 30 days after the issuance ofthe award by this court, therefore the execuse that the Applicant had insufficient time does not hold. In fact

75 there is nothing on the record to indicate that the Applicant made any attempt to apply for leave to appeal and this Court granted it. We therefore take exception to the manner in which Counsel for the Applicant is misleading Court on this issue. Even if kasiriv Atwooki and others vs Grace bumurangye Baroza a dnothers SCCA No. 2 of 2010, being a second appeal may not be applicable to the instant case, the Applicant has not demonstrated that there is a pending appeal before the Court ofAppeal, to warrant the grant of an order to stay the proceedings ofthe main claim.

In the circumstances, we find no merit in the application. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.

85 Delivered and signed by:

THE HON. AG. HEAD JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSIIME MUGISHA

PANELISTS

80

1. MS. ROSE GIDONGO

2. MS. BEATRICE ACIRO OKENY

⁹⁰ 3. MR CHARLES WACHA ANGULO—

DATE: 20/12/2022