Wakilii

Ateker Ejalu v Uganda Railways Workers Union & Anor [1986] UGSC 14

Supreme Court · 1986 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling striking out the suit against the second and third defendants for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the striking out of the appellant's suit against the trade union and the corporation for want of a cause of action was upheld.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 dismissed the appeal. The preliminary objection that no appeal lay as of right was overruled because the suit had been struck out under O.6 r.29 (orders appealable as of right), not O.6 r.27. On the merits, section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree bars any suit against a registered trade union for a tortious act committed on its behalf; the defamatory letter, written by the union's General Secretary, fell within the union's legitimate functions, so the appellant had no cause of action against it. Section 42 of the Interpretation Decree did not conflict with the later, specific immunity. The Corporation, a separate legal entity that received but did not publish the letter, could not be vicariously liable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the striking out of the appellant's suit against the trade union and the corporation for want of a cause of action was upheld.

Facts

The appellant was Managing Director of the Uganda Railways Corporation. Katabulingi was National General Secretary of the Uganda Railways Workers Union, a registered trade union and separate legal entity, to which he had been seconded. In September 1984 Katabulingi wrote and published a letter, signed in his capacity as General Secretary and headed "Threat to Kill Following Illegal Strike", which was defamatory of the appellant, accusing him of incitement, conspiracy, attempted murder and sabotage. A copy was sent to the Corporation's Chief Security Officer and to the appellant. The appellant sued Katabulingi, the union and the Corporation, alleging the union and Corporation were vicariously liable. The High Court (Allen J) found Katabulingi wrote the letter on behalf of the union, struck out the suit against the union and the Corporation for want of a cause of action, and allowed the suit against Katabulingi to proceed. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal lay to the Supreme Court as of right against an order striking out the suit (preliminary objection).
  2. Whether the trial judge correctly interpreted section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree as barring suit against a registered trade union for a tortious act committed on its behalf.
  3. Whether section 42 of the Interpretation Decree preserved the appellant's right to sue the trade union notwithstanding that immunity.
  4. Whether the suit against the Railways Corporation was rightly struck out for want of a cause of action, and whether the Corporation could be vicariously liable for the union official's defamatory letter.

Orders

  • Cross-appeal dismissed, but without costs to the respondents.
  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the lower court awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Right of Appeal — O.6 r.29 vs O.6 r.27
An order striking out a suit on the ground that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action or are frivolous or vexatious is made under Order 6 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which expressly provides that such orders are appealable as of right, and is not an order under Order 6 rule 27 requiring leave to appeal.
Employment & Labour — Trade Unions — Statutory Immunity from Suit in Tort
Section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree bars any court from entertaining a suit against a registered trade union, or its members or officers, in respect of a tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the union.
Employment & Labour — Trade Unions — Scope of Immunity — Legitimate Functions
A registered trade union retains its statutory immunity where its officer acts within the union's legitimate functions; preventing illegal strikes and protecting the lives of union officials are legitimate functions of a trade union, although a union may be liable where it is proved to have acted outside its legitimate functions.
Statutory Interpretation — Conflicting Provisions — Later Specific Enactment Prevails
Where a later and specific enactment grants a registered trade union immunity from suit in tort, that provision prevails; section 42 of the Interpretation Decree, which saves the rights of persons other than those benefited by an enactment, does not conflict with or displace such specific statutory immunity.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Separate Legal Entities — Defamation
An employer cannot be vicariously liable for a tort committed by a separate legal entity that is not its employee; a corporation that merely received, but did not publish, a defamatory letter cannot be liable in defamation for its contents.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Determination of Pure Question of Law Without Evidence
Where whether a party may be sued turns on a pure question of law, the trial court need not hear all the evidence before determining the question, and may properly strike out the suit against that party for want of a cause of action.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Trade Unions Decree (No. 20 of 1976) s.19(1)(b)
  • Interpretation Decree (No. 18 of 1976) s.42
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.40
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.80
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.92(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.101(b)

Cases cited (2)

  • Vacher and Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors (1912) 3 KB 547
  • J.T. Stratford & Son v Lindley (1965) AC 269

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Ateker Ejalu v Uganda Railways Workers Union & Anor [1986] UGSC 14 (11 December 1986)
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.