By William Madouk<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Juba High Court has again adjourned a court session between UAP Insurance Company and dismissed national staff due to missing employment documents.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Justice Francis Amum adjourned the sitting on learning that contract documents bearing employment dates and termination letters for each of the former UAP national staff, were missing in the defence lawyer\u2019s file.<\/p>\n Plaintiff\u2019s lawyer, Marko Reech said the hearing is scheduled for November 14, 2024, to give time for the defendant’s lawyer to avail missing documents.<\/p>\n \u201cWe came today for the framing of the issues that arising between the two conflicting parties but unfortunately we found that there are some data that are missing in the plaintiff document,\u201d said Reech.<\/p>\n \u201cWe will be back on November 14, 2024, for the court session. The missing data are; the date when the contract was signed and when they [national staff] were terminated,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n When asked whether he is hopeful to win the case, Mr. Reech noted that it is too early to predicate who will win the case.<\/p>\n \u201cThat thing is based on the evidence that we are going to produce, and no one at this early stage can even predicate what is going to happen,\u201d he revealed.<\/p>\n A week ago, the High Court postponed the court session between the axed national staff and the UAP insurance management after the defense lawyer snubbed the session.<\/p>\n Three week ago, Juba High Court rejected the UAP Insurance Company\u2019s preliminary objection to abort the case, citing a lack of substantial evidence in the firm\u2019s legal objection and comment.<\/p>\n Presiding Judge Francis Amum trashed the legal objection and affirmed the continuity of the court proceedings. He further urged both advocates to present their evidence before framing the charges.<\/p>\n In September, the defence lawyer had tendered preliminary objection and comment on the filed lawsuit against his client \u2013 UAP management.<\/p>\n In his initial account presented two papers \u2013 one ordering reinstatement with another approving dismissal of staff authored by the Labor Office and asked the judge to dismiss the case.<\/p>\n The plaintiff’s lawyer criticized UAP Insurance Company\u2019s preliminary objections and comments regarding the ongoing dispute between the staff and the company.<\/p>\n He pointed out that his statement includes a response to what he describes as \u201ccontradictory documents\u201d submitted by the defense lawyer, which are allegedly authored by the Ministry of Labor.<\/p>\n When asked whether the terminated staff had received their benefits and if the case was closed by the Labor Ministry, he dismissed these claims as \u201cbaseless.\u201d<\/p>\n He explained that his clients turned to the court because the labor docket did not resolve the issue. That forced about 70 national staff to stage a sit-in strike, bringing the UAP business to a standstill.<\/p>\n UAP Insurance firm dismissed at least ten national staff for calling for improved pay. This was contrary to the Ministry of Labor\u2019s order calling for the reinstatement of 10 fired staff.<\/p>\n This, however, forced the UAP National Staff Association (UNSA) to initiate a legal case against the insurance firm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By William Madouk Juba High Court has again adjourned a court session between UAP Insurance Company and dismissed national staff due to missing employment documents. Justice Francis Amum adjourned the sitting on learning that contract documents bearing employment dates and termination letters for each of the former UAP national[Read More…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":30616,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[80,79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-national","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Court.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30615"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30615\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30617,"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30615\/revisions\/30617"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30616"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.onecitizendaily.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nIn October of last year, UAP and its national employees conflicted with claims of unequal treatment and differing wages for national staff compared to foreign expatriate employees.<\/p>\n