Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sewanyana v Wakiso District Council (Labour Dispute Reference 23 of 2017) [2023] UGIC 98 (16 June 2023)
The Industrial Court overruled a preliminary objection that the claim was served out of time, finding the relevant notice was served within 21 days of issue.
Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH (Labour Dispute Reference 109 of 2020) [2023] UGIC 89 (6 February 2023)
The Industrial Court declined to award costs after dismissing the claim for non-attendance, holding that the claim was not frivolous or vexatious and no exceptional reason justified costs.
Mugyenzi v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2018) [2019] UGCA 120 (18 April 2019)
The Court of Appeal held that section 71(2) of the Employment Act does not create a statutory limitation period barring actions in court but prescribes the time for lodging complaints with the Labour officer, who retains discretion to admit complaints out of time if justified. The Industrial Court erred in treating this provision as a limitation period and striking out the appellant's claim. The proper course would have been to refer the matter back to the Labour officer for consideration of whether the claim should be entertained outside the prescribed period. Furthermore, the Industrial Cou…
Source excerpt
AIG Uganda Limited v Maguru (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 29 of 2017) [2018] UGIC 24 (10 August 2018)
The Industrial Court held that adjudication begun after a referral request was irregular and void, and set aside the labour officer’s ruling.
Wasswa v African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET) (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2017) [2017] UGIC 11 (10 March 2017)
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its awards, especially where its own rules are silent on the procedure. The corrections sought by the applicant were supported by affidavit evidence and were not substantively challenged by the respondent, who failed to file an affidavit in reply. The corrections do not alter the intention or substance of the original award but merely rectify accidental slips or omissions. The pendency of an appeal does not preclude the court from making such corrections, as they do…
Source excerpt
