Uganda Case Law

Ojok and 87 Others v Torres Advanced Enterprises Solutions LLC (Labour Dispute Reference No. 24 of 2015)

Ojok and 87 Others v Torres Advanced Enterprises Solutions LLC (Labour Dispute Reference No. 24 of 2015) [2021] UGIC 18 (14 May 2021)

Court

Industrial Court of Uganda

Case number

Labour Dispute Reference No. 24 of 2015

Judge

Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Tumusiime-Mugisha, J, Ebyau, Panel Member, Mubuuke, Panel Member, Mugambwa, Panel Member

The Industrial Court found the claimants were in continuous service across a transition from Triple Canopy to Torres, and that their dismissals were unlawful.

• Continuous Service
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Severance Pay
• Payment In Lieu Of Notice
• Nssf Contributions
• Discrimination

Kamiza v North Bukedi Cotton Company Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 103 of 2015)

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

Court

Industrial Court of Uganda

Case number

Labour Dispute Reference No. 103 of 2015

Judge

Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Tumusiime-Mugisha, J

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 aw…

Source excerpt

• Retirement Benefits
• Continuous Service
• Terminal Benefits
• Employment Contract Interpretation

Mugisha v Equity Bank

Mugisha v Equity Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2019) [2019] UGIC 210 (4 April 2019)

Court

Industrial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2019

The court found that its previous decision in Labour Dispute Appeal 26/2017 contained an error on the face of the record by interpreting Donna Kamuli Vs DFCU to peg severance entitlement to years worked, thereby excluding employees who had worked for less than twelve months from severance allowance. This interpretation was made without considering Section 87 of the Employment Act, which entitles employees with at least six months of continuous service to severance allowance. The court held that this was a manifest error, not requiring extraneous evidence, and thus reviewable under Section 82…

Source excerpt

• Severance Allowance
• Error On Face Of Record
• Review Of Award
• Interpretation Of Employment Act
• Continuous Service
• Labour Dispute Arbitration