Brief: Star DTU (U) Company v. Mutinyu Moses

---

Topic: Leave to Appeal, Grounds of Appeal in Labour Disputes

Date of Judgment: 21 June 2024

Case Number/Citation: Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2023, 2024 UGIC 6

Court: Industrial Court of Uganda at Mbale

Judge: Hon. Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha, Ag. Head Judge

Panelists:

• Hon. Charles Wacha Angulo
• Hon. Rose Gidongo
• Hon. Harriet Mugambwa Nganzi

Summary Facts of the Case

The Respondent, Mutinyu Moses, filed a labour complaint against Star DTU (U) Company Limited for unfair termination and non-payment of salary.

The Senior Labour Officer of Mbale City issued an award in favour of the respondent, granting UGX 36,686,080. This amount included payment in lieu of notice, failure to give a hearing, general damages, compensatory pay, salary arrears, NSSF contributions, severance pay, claims for overtime, and leave balance.

The Applicant, dissatisfied with the decision, sought leave to appeal to the Industrial Court on questions of mixed law and facts.

Legal Issues Before the Court

• Whether the Application satisfies the requirements set out in Section 94(2) of the Employment Act, 2006, and Rule 24 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court Procedure) Rules, 2012.

The Decision of the Court

The Court examined whether the grounds of appeal presented by the Applicant involved questions of law or mixed law and facts that were part of the Labour Officer’s decision as required by Section 94 (2) of the Employment Act.

Section 94 (2) of the Employment Act provides: “An appeal under this section shall lie on a question of law and with leave of the Industrial Court, on a question of fact forming part of the decision of the Labour officer.“

The Court held that grounds 1 and 2 did not merit consideration on appeal as they were about preliminary issues that did not form part of the Labour Officer’s decision.

For instance, Ground 1 stated as follows: “The Senior Labour Officer erred in law and fact when he proceeded to act on notification of the complaint without a supporting affidavit verifying/substantiating the Respondent’s claim, prejudicing the Applicant’s defence, thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”

Grounds 3 and 9, however, related to the analysis of facts and evaluation of evidence by the Labour Officer, which according to the Court merited further consideration on Appeal.

Key Quote: “This Court in Bureau Veritas Uganda Limited v Davlin Kamugisha LD Misc. Appln. No 54 of 2017, was of the considered opinion the framers of Section 94(2) (supra), intended to preserve the autonomy of the Labour officer as an arbitrator or adjudicator, as a finder of fact, hence making it mandatory for a party seeking leave to appeal based on matters of fact or of mixed law and fact to first seek leave of court. This is because it is the role of the trial Court or forum to determine facts and for the Appellate court to determine points of law.” – Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha.

Law Applied by the Court

• Section 94 of the Employment Act, 2006.
• Bureau Veritas Uganda Limited v Davlin Kamugisha LD Misc. Application. No 54 of 2017.

Counsel on Record

For the Applicant: Mr. Moris Emesu holding brief for Mr. Musiime Patrick of M/s. Veritas Advocates.

For the Respondent: M/S Nandaah Wamukoota & Co. Advocates.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the criteria for granting leave to appeal in labour disputes under Section 94(2) of the Employment Act.

Case Download Link

---

Share, print, or bookmark this Case Summary