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
Serwamba v Deneva Company Limited (Labour Appeal 19 of 2019) [2023] UGIC 18 (6 June 2023)
The Industrial Court upheld a Labour Officer’s refusal of jurisdiction over a cross-border employment dispute, finding the work and dismissal were connected to Kenya.
Jag Security Limited v Aminu (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2022) [2023] UGIC 35 (13 May 2023)
The Industrial Court held that the Mbale Labour Officer lacked territorial jurisdiction over a dispute arising from Kampala and set aside the award and reference.
Asiimwe and Another v Round Off International Limited (Civil Suit 576 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 84 (27 April 2023)
The court held that, although the High Court possesses unlimited jurisdiction, the Employment Act, 2006 specifically vests initial jurisdiction over employment disputes in the Labour Officer. The statutory framework and judicial policy require that such matters be first referred to the Labour Officer for resolution, and only escalated to higher courts if necessary. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid salary, medical bills, and damages for unfair termination fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Labour Officer as per section 93 of the Act. The existence of alternative…
Source excerpt
Food for the Hungry v Ongaya (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 18 of 2020) [2022] UGIC 6 (4 November 2022)
The Industrial Court partly allowed an appeal over probationary termination, upholding terminal benefits but setting aside damages and contract-balance compensation.
Nsenga v Alliance One Tobacco Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 88 of 2021) [2021] UGIC 101 (12 October 2021)
The application for security for satisfaction of decree was filed before the suit from which it ought to have arisen. Order 40 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that attachment before judgment be sought in a suit that is already pending before the court. Since there was no pending suit at the time the application was filed, the application was incurably defective. The court cannot justifiably issue an order of attachment under Order 40 rule 5 CPR in an application filed prior to the institution of the suit. The protection afforded to a plaintiff by attachment before judgment only a…
Source excerpt
Makawa v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 33 of 2019) [2021] UGIC 68 (17 September 2021)
The Labour Officer acted within the law by not awarding general damages, as Section 78 of the Employment Act does not empower such awards. The Labour Officer did refer the claim for damages to the Industrial Court after delivering the award, and the Appellant should have filed the matter as a reference, not an appeal. The absence of a decision on damages by the Labour Officer means there was no basis for appeal on that ground. Nevertheless, the Industrial Court, exercising its discretion under Section 94(3), resolved the issue of damages to avoid multiplicity of claims. The Appellant was unfa…
Source excerpt
Kampala International Hospital v Karanzi (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 15 of 2019) [2021] UGIC 21 (28 May 2021)
The Industrial Court found that the Labour Officer's dual role as both mediator and adjudicator in the same dispute constituted an illegality, as established in Sure Telecom Vs Brian Azemchap. This procedural irregularity rendered the adjudication proceedings and all resulting orders void. The court emphasized that once such an illegality is brought to its attention, it must override all other considerations, including the merits of the case or the pleadings of the parties. Consequently, the court set aside the Labour Officer's decision and ordered a retrial before a different Labour Officer,…
Source excerpt
Team University v Byaruhanga (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 22 of 2018) [2020] UGIC 5 (12 February 2020)
The Industrial Court dismissed Team University’s appeal as incompetent for being filed out of time under Regulation 45, while setting aside the labour officer’s costs order.
UMEME Limited v Harriet Negesa (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 72 of 2018) [2019] UGIC 34 (26 July 2019)
The court found that the process followed by the appellant did not constitute a disciplinary hearing as required by law. The respondent was not given adequate notice of the specific allegations, her supervisor was not involved, and she was not afforded an opportunity to defend herself or call witnesses. The performance hearing was not equivalent to a disciplinary hearing under Section 66 of the Employment Act or Article 28 of the Constitution. Consequently, the termination was both unfair and unlawful. The labour officer was correct in awarding severance allowance as a statutory remedy for un…
Source excerpt
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
