Court name
Industrial Court of Uganda
Judgment date
12 August 2016

Stanbic Bank v Ntalo (Labour Dispute Application-2016/51) [2016] UGIC 5 (12 August 2016);

Cite this case
[2016] UGIC 5

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA

LABOUR DISPUTE APPLICATION 51/2016

(from original labour dispute176/2014)

(from original civil suit 135/2013)

                    STANBICK BANK.......................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

                    NTALO MOHAMMED................................................................RESPONDENT

 

RULING

This application seeks an order of this court to dismiss labour  dispute claim 176/2014 for non prosecution.

Briefly the facts are that civil suit 135/2013 was filed in the civil division of the High Court on 17/05/2013 and a defense was filed on 06/06/2013.

The file was eventually transferd to this court and registered as Labour Dispute Claim 176/2014. since the transfer the claimant has never persued the matter.

Counsel for the applicant contended that disputes in this court should be expeditiously handled and that since no step has ever been taken with a view to prosecute the claim it should be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

The record reveals that both parties were represented in Court on 25/07/2016 when Ms  Nasiima for the respondent sought an adjournment to enable her to file an affidavit in reply which adjournment was allowed to 25/07/2016.

On this date counsel for the respondent did not appear and neither had she filed any affidavit in reply. This court was,  fortunately for counsel, not properly constituted and the matter was adjourned to 08/08/2016.

Again counsel  for the respondent did not appear and neither did her  client. Since the respondent had on his own volition locked himself outside the court proceedings on 25/07/2016, this court allowed the applicant to proceed  exparte.

We agree with counsel that Labour disputes ought to be expeditiously resolved and  in our view the fact that the respondent has never made any step towards prosecuting his case implies that he has lost interest in the case.

The fact that the respondent failed to file an affidavit in reply to this application even after being given an opportunity to do so, in our view, further demonstrates loss of interest in the claim before this Court.

We accordingly grant the application. Labour dispute claim 176/2014 stands dismissed for lack of prosecution with costs to the applicant.

SIGNED

1. Hon. Justice Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye Chief Judge......................................................................................

2. Lady Justice Linda Lillian Mugisha Tumusiime............................................................................................

PANNELLISTS

1.  Mr. Ebyau Fidel.................................................................................................................

2. Mr. Anthony  Wanyama......................................................................................................

3.Mr. Michael Matovu............................................................................................................

Dated the 12th day of August 2016