The Industrial Court held the claimant proved employment only from 2005 to 2006, not to 2021, and dismissed the claim for unlawful termination and unpaid wages.
The Industrial Court found the claimant was an employee entitled to US$500 per month, awarded US$8,500 salary arrears and US$1,000 general damages, and rejected the US$2,500 wage claim.
The Industrial Court found that the labour officer improperly shifted from mediation to adjudication, rendering the initial award invalid. However, based on uncontested evidence, the claimants were employed by the respondent under a valid verbal contract and were entitled to wages for two years of service. The respondent failed to pay the agreed monthly salary of UGX 350,000 to each claimant, and did not contest the claims. The court awarded each claimant UGX 8,400,000 in unpaid wages and UGX 1,000,000 in general damages, totaling UGX 16,400,000 in unpaid wages and UGX 2,000,000 in general da…
The court found that the relationship between the claimants and the respondent was not one of employment but rather that of independent contracting. The claimants were engaged for a fixed task (roof construction), were paid a fixed sum (25% of material costs), and the second claimant had the liberty to delegate work without the respondent's consent. The respondent did not exercise sufficient control over the claimants to establish an employment relationship. As such, the claim did not constitute a labour dispute within the meaning of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006,…
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to serve the application and supporting affidavit on the respondent within the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found no evidence of timely service, and agreed with the respondent that the application was only brought to their attention much later. Substantively, the court held that employment law does not require the employer to be a registered legal entity for liability to arise, as Section 2 of the Employment Act covers any organization for whom an employee has worked. The description of the respondent in the…
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to serve the application and supporting affidavit on the respondent within the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found no evidence of timely service and accepted the respondent's assertion that service was only effected much later. Substantively, the court held that employment claims may be brought against any organization for whom the employee worked, regardless of legal personality, as provided under Section 2 of the Employment Act and affirmed by precedent. The description of the respondent in the memorandum o…
The Industrial Court upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding the claimants were members of the Uganda Peoples Defense Forces.
Ssali & 4 Ors v The B.O.G St. Benedict's SS Buwama (Labour Dispute Claim 96 of 2014) [2019] UGIC 32 (12 July 2019)
Court
Industrial Court of Uganda
Case number
Labour Dispute Claim 96 of 2014
Judge
Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Tumusiime-Mugisha, J
The Industrial Court found an employment relationship and awarded unpaid salary balances to four claimants, but disallowed claims for termination-based relief.
Obokullo v Walter Arnold (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2016) [2016] UGIC 17 (14 October 2016)
Court
Industrial Court of Uganda
Case number
Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2016
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, as the alleged errors required argument and were not self-evident. The court also held that the applicant did not present any new and important evidence that was not previously available at the time of the original proceedings. The court emphasized that the submissions made by the applicant were more appropriate for an appeal rather than a review, but appeals from the Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal are limited to matters of law, not fact. As such, the court concluded that it was fun…
Masereka v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 9 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 16 (10 November 2014)
Court
HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)
Case number
HCT-00-AC-CN 9 of 2014
The High Court allowed Masereka Johnson’s appeal against an embezzlement conviction, finding the prosecution failed to prove employment and theft beyond reasonable doubt.