By William Madouk
UAP Insurance legal team is left at crossroad on whether appeal or not, on high court ruling that rejected their legal objections.
Yesterday, Judge Francis Amum granted the defense more time to decide whether to appeal this decision or proceed with the ongoing court case.
After a court session, Marko Reech, a plaintiff’s explained that the session was convened to respond to the defendant’s amended claims.
“Unfortunately, the dependent came with the new objection which the court has already ruled on it before,” Reech said. “And they are insisting that the legal objection is based on the controversial two documents provided by the Minister of Labor in the same order.”
As a result, the court ordered a 15-day adjournment to give the defense lawyer adequate time to make a decision on whether to appeal the high court’s ruling.
“They are now given an option either to appeal that decision or either to proceed with the case. They are given a chance up to day 18 of December,” Reech revealed.
Reech also suggested that UAP’s legal team is likely to appeal the court’s decision as a tactical delay in the hearing process.
“According to what I have seen from the counsel for the defendant, they are of the opinion that they will appeal the decision on the ruling by the court and they will have the option to appeal it in the Court of Appeal if they are willing to appeal it,” he said.
“Yes, it will be taken to the higher court, which is the Court of Appeal. Actually, the Court of Appeal will look at whether the judge has ruled it correctly or has overruled it. And those things are just tactical for delaying,” the lawyer added.
He highlighted that the legal battle between the national staff and UAP would likely prolong, as the defendant’s counsel appears to be attempting to delay the proceedings further.
In late October, Judge Amum dismissed the UAP’s legal objections, allowing the court proceedings to continue, citing a lack of substantial evidence in the firm’s objections and comments.
The court urged both parties to present their evidence before formal charges were framed.
Six days ago, the defense lawyer for UAP, Mr. Gabriel Anyar, did not appear in court for a session regarding the labor dispute between terminated national staff and Old Mutual Insurance.
The session was intended for submitting the defense’s amended statement in response to the plaintiff’s claims.
Almost three weeks ago, the plaintiff’s lawyer submitted an amended petition to Judge Francis Amum, including employment details for the terminated staff after the judge ordered attorneys to provide missing information. However, the defense has yet to submit their amended defense statement.
After both statements are evaluated, the judge will frame the charges accordingly.
Over a month ago, the Juba High Court rejected UAP Insurance Company’s preliminary objection to dismiss the case, citing insufficient evidence in the firm’s legal arguments. During the court hearing, the defense presented a preliminary objection and commentary on the filed lawsuit against UAP management.
In their initial submission, the defense provided two documents—one regarding the reinstatement of staff and another concerning their dismissal—but claimed they were only aware of the letter calling for reinstatement.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s lawyer submitted their response to UAP’s objection, highlighting what they referred to as “contradictory documents” submitted by the defense, purportedly authored by the Ministry of Labor.
In the ruling, Judge Francis Amum dismissed the legal objection and affirmed that court proceedings would continue.
In October of last year, a dispute arose between UAP and its national employees over wage disparities between nationals and foreign expatriates.
This led to around 70 national staff staging a sit-in strike, bringing UAP’s business operations to a halt.
UAP Insurance subsequently dismissed at least ten national staff members who called for improved pay, contrary to the Ministry of Labor’s order that called for the reinstatement of those employees.
This situation prompted the UAP National Staff Association (UNSA) to initiate legal action.
.