Aturo and Another (on behalf of 44 Others ) v Solar Now Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2022)
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 Industrial Court considered an ex parte application for leave to file a representative suit on behalf of 46 former employees seeking severance pay and damages for unlawful termination. The Court found that 8 of the 46 intended claimants had not provided written authorization as required by Order 1 Rule 8(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court directed the Applicants to give notice to those 8 persons about the institution of the suit and to obtain their written authorization in compliance with the Rules before proceeding.
Outcome
Application granted subject to compliance with procedural requirements for representative suit authorization
Facts
46 persons, including the two Applicants, were former employees of Solar Now Uganda Limited. They were all terminated in a restructuring exercise. The Respondent Company did not pay them severance pay as provided under the Employment Act 2006. The former employees filed a complaint with the Labour Office at Makindye vide Labour Dispute No. KCCA/MAK/LC/080/2021. The Respondent failed to attend mediation before the Labour Officer, and the dispute was not resolved within the statutory 8 weeks. The former employees authorized the 1st and 2nd Applicants to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court and to file a representative suit on their behalf seeking severance pay, general damages for unlawful termination, interest and costs.
Issues
- Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of 44 other former employees.
Orders
- The Applicants are directed to give notice to the 8 intended claimants who did not provide written authorization about the institution of the suit in the Industrial Court, the nature of the suit, and the reliefs sought.
- The 8 intended claimants are to provide their written authorization in compliance with Order 1 Rule 8(2)(b) as amended.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.