By William Madouk
All eyes are on UAP Insurance’s defense team as they decide whether to appeal the High Court’s rejection of their legal objection or proceed with the case. Judge Francis Amum granted the defense more time after they resubmitted the objection. Meanwhile, Marko Reech, the lawyer for the plaintiff, noted the session was meant to address the defendant’s amended plan
“Unfortunately, the dependent came with the new objection, which the court has already ruled on 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.”
The court then ordered a 15-day adjournment to give ample time for the defense lawyer to decide on whether to appeal against 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.
Mr. Reech also noted that he believes UAP’s legal team would appeal against the high court decision as a tactical delay in the court hearing.
“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,”
“Yes, it will be taken to the higher court, which is the Court of Appeal. Actually, the Court of Appeal will look whether the judge has ruled it correctly or has overruled it. And those things are just tactical for delaying,”
He cited that the legal battle between national staff and the UAP firm would take a long time because the defendant’s counsel is trying to delay the case even more.
In late October, presiding Judge Amum trashed the UAP legal objection and affirmed the continuity of the court proceedings, citing a lack of substantial evidence in the firm’s legal objection and comment.
The court further urged both advocates to present their evidence before framing the charges.
Six days ago, a Defense advocate for UAP insurance company, Mr. Gabriel Anyar, made a no-show at Juba High Court on a labor brawl between terminated national staff and an Old-Mutual insurance firm.
The tribunal session was set for submission of the defense’s amended statement in rejoinder to the plaintiff’s amended account on the labor case.
Almost three weeks ago, the plaintiff’s lawyer handed Judge Francis Amum an amended petition bearing employment details for terminated staff after a judge ordered attorneys to avail missing data in the documents.
Nonetheless, the defense lawyer has yet to submit an amended defense statement before the court.
Later, the Judge would evaluate the two statements, and he would then frame charges.
Over a month ago, the Juba High Court rejected the UAP Insurance Company’s preliminary objection to abort the case, citing a lack of substantial evidence in the firm’s legal objection and comment.
The defense lawyer for the UAP company, during the session of the court hearing, had tendered preliminary objection and comment on the filed lawsuit against his client – UAP management.
In his initial account, the defense presented two papers – one ordering reinstatement with another approving dismissal of staff, but he said they are only aware of a first letter calling for reinstatement of his clients.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s lawyer also handed over their position statement in response to the UAP’s objection.
He cited that his statement contains a reply on what he terms as ‘contradictory documents’ that were submitted by a defense lawyer and purportedly authored by the Ministry of Labor.
In the ruling, the presiding Judge, Francis Amum, trashed the legal objection and affirmed the continuity of the court proceedings.
In October last year, UAP and its national employees were in dispute over unequal treatment and differing wages for nationals compared to their foreign expatriate counterparts.
That forced about 70 national staff to stage a sit-in strike, bringing the UAP business to a standstill.
UAP Insurance firm dismissed at least ten national staff for calling for improved pay. This was contrary to the Ministry of Labor’s order calling for the reinstatement of 10 fired staff.
This, however, forced the UAP National Staff Association (UNSA) to initiate a legal case against the insurance firm.