Wakilii

Kasito Robert v Service & Computer Industries (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 705 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 259 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the Industrial Court, sitting on appeal from a decision of the Labour Officer
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; the decision of the Industrial Court confirming that the appellant was an intern and not an employee stands

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held the appeal incompetent: under section 23 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act an appeal from the Industrial Court lies only on a point of law or jurisdiction, and the appellant's complaint that he was wrongly found to be an intern rather than an employee was a question of mixed law and fact, not law. Determining the merits for completeness, the court held that a person engaged under a freely signed internship contract for a stipend is not an employee within section 2 of the Employment Act, and so was not entitled to NSSF, PAYE or other employee benefits. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

On 11 July 2020 the appellant was engaged by the respondent as an intern under a written contract titled "Internship Contract" for a period of one year, receiving a monthly stipend of UGX 700,000. He was interviewed for the internship vacancy by his supervisor, Peter Ouko, on the understanding that he would be retained as an employee if he performed effectively. He was deployed at Mbarara in August 2020 and in 2021 was directed to relocate to Kampala following client complaints about his absence from work. The appellant refused to board a truck sent to transport him to Kampala, asserting he was not facilitated. His internship was terminated. He complained to the Labour Officer seeking payment in lieu of notice, salary, NSSF, PAYE, severance and other relief. The Labour Officer found he was not an employee within section 2 of the Employment Act. The Industrial Court confirmed that finding and held the termination was not unlawful, prompting this second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was competently before the Court of Appeal, given that section 23 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act permits an appeal from the Industrial Court only on a point of law or jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the Industrial Court erred in law in holding that the appellant was an intern and not an employee within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act.
  3. Whether the appellant was entitled to the remedies he sought, including payment in lieu of notice, NSSF and PAYE benefits, and the balance of the contract period.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Statutory Nature of the Right of Appeal
A right of appeal is purely statutory; appellate jurisdiction, the parties entitled to appeal and the conditions of appeal must be conferred in the clearest statutory language, and an appellate court may raise the absence of such a right suo motu because a judgment given without jurisdiction is a nullity.
Employment & Labour — Appeals from the Industrial Court — Confined to Points of Law
Under section 23 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, an appeal from the Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal lies only on a point of law or on whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction; a ground founded on findings of fact or mixed law and fact is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Distinguishing Law from Mixed Law and Fact
Whether a ground of appeal raises a question of law is determined by the substance of the complaint, not its labelling; where the issue is whether facts satisfy a legal test the question is one of mixed law and fact, and labelling it an error of law does not make it so.
Employment & Labour — Employee Status — Intern Distinguished from Employee
A person engaged under a contract expressly titled and operating as an internship, for the primary purpose of gaining experience and skills in return for a stipend, is not an employee within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act and is not entitled to employee benefits such as NSSF and PAYE.
Contract Law — Interpretation — Natural and Literal Meaning of a Freely Signed Contract
The words of a contract are to be given their natural and literal meaning; a contract of internship signed freely and without coercion will not be construed as a contract of employment, for had the parties intended an employment relationship they would have created one.
Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence — Deemed Admitted
Where evidence on a material or essential point is not challenged, it is deemed admitted as inherently credible and probably true.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Employment Act Cap 226 s.2
  • Employment Act s.66
  • Employment Act s.93
  • Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act s.23

Cases cited (7)

  • Boku Raphael Obudra v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Eseza Catherine Byakika v National Social Security Fund (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2021)
  • Lubanga lomodo v Dr Ddumbo Edward (2016) UGCA II
  • Celtel Uganda Ltd t/a ZAIN Uganda v Karungi Susan (Civil Appeal No. 0073 of 2013)
  • Metol Construction (W.A) Ltd & Ors v Migliore, Mrs D.A & Anor (1990) 2 SCNI 20;(1990) 1 NWLR 299
  • Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.