UAP lawyers given greenlight to plea against dismissed legal obligation

JUBA-Juba High Court on Monday granted the defense lawyers representing UAP Insurance South Sudan, a subsidiary of Old Mutual Group, East Africa, a right to appeal after dismissing their legal obligations.

The Juba High Court last month rejected UAP Insurance Company’s preliminary objection to dismiss a lawsuit filed by former staff, citing a lack of substantial evidence supporting the firm’s motion.

High Court presiding Judge, Francis Amum on Monday granted defense lawyers of UAP insurance company time to decide on whether to appeal against a court decision of rejecting their legal objection or to continue with court proceedings.

Addressing journalists after a court session in Juba on Monday, Marko Reech – a plaintiff lawyer for axed UAP staff said the Monday’s session was set for the reply on the amended plan by the dependent.

“Unfortunately, the dependent came with the new objection which the court has already ruled on before,” Reech said.

Reech said the court rejected the defense legal objection due to the controversy of the two documents presented by the Minister of Labor.

He disclosed the court has given 15-days to defense lawyers 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,”

He believed UAP’s legal team would appeal against the decision of the high court as a tactical delay on 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 an option to appeal it in the Court of Appeal if they are willing to appeal it,” he said.

He cited that the legal battle between national staff and UAP firm would take a long time due to delay of the court by the defendant counsel.

In September 2023, 57 national staff of the UAP insurance company staged a strike over what they termed unfair working environment.

They accused the company of unequal payment compared to their foreign counterparts.

However, the company decided to sack the leaders of the national staff association, who later dragged it to court.