Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:59 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

19 Dec 2022

Employment And Labour [2022] UGIC 15

Mutono v Kampala International University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 335 of 2017)

Mutono v Kampala International University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 335 of 2017) [2022] UGIC 15 (19 December 2022)

Court: Industrial Court of Uganda
Case number: Labour Dispute Reference No. 335 of 2017
Judge: Wabwire, J, Kagoye, Panel Member, Musimbi, Panel Member, Lapenga, Panel Member

The Industrial Court's jurisdiction is not ousted by Section 93(6) of the Employment Act in respect of tortious claims, including defamation, arising out of the employment relationship. The provision only restricts labour officers, not the Industrial Court. The court further held that while the pleadings did not sufficiently disclose particulars of defamation, the claim itself is broader, being rooted in an employment dispute with ancillary claims. Striking out the entire memorandum of claim would be unjust, as it would deny the claimant access to justice for the substantive employment disput…

Source excerpt

Jurisdiction Of Industrial Court
Employment Related Torts
Defamation In Employment
Pleading Requirements
Striking Out Pleadings

Read case analysis

9 Dec 2008

Employment And Labour [2008] UGHC 25

Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael & 37 Ors v IGG (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007 ) (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007)

Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael & 37 Ors v IGG (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007 ) (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007) [2008] UGHC 25 (9 December 2008)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007

The court found that the objections raised by the defendant were not based on pure points of law but rather on factual disputes that could only be resolved after hearing evidence. The plaintiffs were properly joined in the suit, each suing in their own right, and there was no representative suit requiring special authority. The references to NSSF contributions did not amount to enforcement of the NSSF Act but were relevant to the alleged breach of contract. The plaint disclosed a cause of action by alleging employment, breach of contract, and resulting loss, meeting the legal test for a cause…