Download

Uganda Judgment

Industrial Court of Uganda

Kamiza v North Bukedi Cotton Company Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 103 of 2015) [2020] UGIC 8 (12 February 2020)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the claimant was a permanent employee, confirmed by letter effective 18/12/1995, and not a seasonal worker as alleged by the respondent. The employment contract and confirmation letter established his entitlement to monthly salary and permanent staff status. The court applied Regulation 27, determining that the claimant had 18 years of continuous service, and was entitled to two months' salary for every year of service after ten years. The calculation was based on the confirmed monthly salary of 120,000/=, resulting in a total entitlement of 4,320,000/=. The court also awarded interest at 8% from the date of retirement until payment in full. No costs were awarded.

Court disposition

claim_partially_upheld

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant 4,320,000/= as retirement benefits.
  • The claimant shall be entitled to interest at 8% per annum from the date of retirement until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

James Kamiza

Claimant Counsel: Sandra Masiko

North Bukedi Cotton Company Ltd.

Respondent Counsel: Gloria Erimu

Amounts and remedies

  • Retirement Benefits Awarded: UGX 4,320,000
  • Interest Rate Awarded: 8

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Labour Dispute Reference / Award

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant was employed for 18 years as a mechanic and was entitled to retirement benefits under Regulation 27 of the North Bukedi Cotton Company Limited staff regulations. He asserted that the claimant was a permanent employee, not a seasonal worker, and calculated entitlement based on two months' salary for every year of service after 10 years, amounting to 14,400,000/=.
Respondent
No submissions from the respondent were filed by the time of the award. The respondent had previously contended that the claimant was a seasonal employee, only entitled to benefits for seasonal contracts, and not eligible for retirement benefits as a permanent staff member.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Regulation 27 of North Bukedi Cotton Company Limited staff regulations

    Employees with continuous service are entitled to retirement benefits as per Regulation 27, which provides for one month's salary per year after five years and two months' salary per year after ten years of service.

  2. 02

    Section 83 of the Employment Act

    Continuous service is defined as uninterrupted service with the same employer, with a presumption in favor of continuity unless proven otherwise.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the claimant was a permanent employee, confirmed by letter effective 18/12/1995, and not a seasonal worker as alleged by the respondent. The employment contract and confirmation letter established his entitlement to monthly salary and permanent staff status. The court applied Regulation 27, determining that the claimant had 18 years of continuous service, and was entitled to two months' salary for every year of service after ten years. The calculation was based on the confirmed monthly salary of 120,000/=, resulting in a total entitlement of 4,320,000/=. The court also awarded interest at 8% from the date of retirement until payment in full. No costs were awarded.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted that the claimant's calculation of 14,400,000/= was unsupported by evidence or clear computation in the memorandum of claim.
  • The employment letter and confirmation established the claimant's status as a permanent employee, not a seasonal worker.

Court disposition

claim_partially_upheld

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant 4,320,000/= as retirement benefits.
  • The claimant shall be entitled to interest at 8% per annum from the date of retirement until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

Industrial Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Industrial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2020] UGIC 8

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LABOUR DISPUTE REFERENCE NO. 103 OF 2015 [ARISING FROM MGLSD NO. 286/2015]

BETWEEN

JAMES KAMIZA ………… …………………….….………….. CLAIMANT

VERSUS

NORTH BUKEDI COTTON COMPANY LTD.…………….. RESPONDENT

BEFORE

- 1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye - 2. Hon. Lady Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha

PANELISTS

- 1. Ms. Adrine Namara - 2. Mr. Micheal Matovu - 3. Ms. Susan Nabirye

AWARD

Brief facts

The claimant, by memorandum of claim, stated that he was employed by the respondent for 18 years before he retired but on retirement he was denied retirement benefits. In reply, the respondent stated that the claimant was a seasonal employee who was employed as per the season and who took benefit of his seasonal contracts of employment.

Representation:

The claimant was represented by M/s. Sandra Masiko of M/s. Tropical Law Advocates while the respondent was represented by M/s. Gloria Erimu of Lex Uganda Advocates and Solicitors.

When the matter came up for hearing on 19/11/2019 both counsel agreed that the only contention was on the interpretation of the regulations of staff as to terminal benefits. Both counsel agreed to file submissions upon which this court would give an award.

Submissions:

Counsel for the claimant filed submissions on 13/12/2019. He submitted that in accordance with Regulation 27 of the North Bukedi Cotton Company Limited, the employer of the claimant, the claimant was entitled to 14,400,000/= having worked for 18 years from 1995-2013 as a mechanic.

By the time of writing this Award no submissions from the respondent have been filed.

Regulation 27 of Regulations of the respondent staff provided.

"REGULATION 27

RETIRMENT SCHEME AND TERMINAL BENEFITS all employees will be entitled to retirement benefits as follows:

- 1. After five years of continuous service, employees will be entitled to one month's salary for every year of service to the company. - 2. After 10 years of continuous service employees will be entitled to two months' salary for every year of service to the company for each year worked after 10 years. - 3. The company and all employees shall contribute to any national retirements scheme legislated for in Uganda according to its rules and regulations.

By an undated letter signed by one B. F. Janvis, managing Director of the respondent, the claimant was offered an appointment on probation commencing 18/12/1995 at a monthly salary of 120,000/=. The letter provided (inter alia).

"During the ginning season you will be required to work 12 hour shifts, with one hour off for a meal after five hours of work and one thirty minute tea break.

During the ginning season, this meal will be provided by the company. If you are confirmed after satisfactory performance during the probationary period, you will be appointed to our permanent staff under the terms and conditions agreed above. The hours of work during the off season will be reduced to an 8.a.m start, finishing at 4.00p.m. with an hour's break for lunch from 1 to 2 pm…."

By letter dated 6/11/1996 the claimant was confirmed with effect from 18/12/1995 and admitted to the permanent and established staff of the company.

The respondent company had ginning seasons which were peak periods where the claimant (and other workers) were particularly required to put in more hours than during the off season as shown in the above appointment letter. The employment letter does not in any way suggest that the claimant was employed seasonally and therefore paid per season as the respondent seems to suggest. The letter of appointment and the subsequent letter of confirmation both are clear that the claimant was an employee of the respondent entitled to payment of 120,000/= per month and not per season. Consequently as an employee of the respondent, the claimant was entitled to retirement benefits as provided under regulation 27 above cited.

The claimant claims that he worked for 18 years. Since he retired from the service of the respondent by letter dated 7/10/2013 this means he claims to have started work in Oct 1995.

The record shows that the claimant was confirmed effective 18/12/1995 and therefore his claim is based from the date of confirmation which is to the advantage of the respondent. The claimant was earning a salary of 120,000/= per month.

Regulation 27 (2) provides that after 10 years of continuous service an employee is entitled to 2 months' salary for every year of service.

Section 83 of the Employment Act provides

"83 Definition of continuous service

- (i) Subject to the provisions of this section. "Continuous service means an employee's period of uninterrupted services with the same employer. - (ii) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the service of an employee with an employer shall be continuous, whether or not the employee remains in the same job.

The record does not reveal any interruption in the service of the claimant and therefore we find that he was in the continuous service of the respondent during the 18 years. Although in his submissions counsel for the claimant claimed 14,400,000/= there is nothing to suggest how he arrived at this figure. The memorandum of claim does not show any specific figure claimed.

Accordingly he is entitled to 120,000x 2 x18 which is 4,320,000/=. The claimant will be entitled to interest of 8% from the date of retirement till payment in full. No order as to costs is made.

Delivered & signed by:

- 1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye ......................... - 2. Hon. Lady Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha .........................

PANELISTS

1. Ms. Adrine Namara .........................

2. Mr. Michael Matovu .........................

3. Ms. Susan Nabirye .........................

Dated: 12/02/2020

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 83 of the Employment Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.