Baliruno v Central Broadcasting Services (CBS) (Labour Dispute Reference 92 of 2020)
Observed later treatment
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 is not bound by strict rules of evidence under Section 18 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006. Documents objected to on grounds of being photocopies or not addressed to the witness may be admitted at the preliminary stage, with their authenticity, credibility, and reliability to be tested in cross-examination and evaluated later. The preliminary objection to admissibility was overruled and the contested documents were admitted in evidence.
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits
Facts
The Claimant brought a labour dispute reference against the Respondent. At the hearing, the Respondent's counsel objected to the admissibility of five of the Claimant's documents on the grounds that they were photocopies not covered by exceptions in Section 46 of the Evidence Act, that some documents were not addressed to the Claimant, and that once admissibility is contested, documents cannot be admitted for identification. The Claimant's counsel submitted that the documents were relevant and that the Claimant could be cross-examined. The Court was required to determine whether the contested documents should be admitted in evidence.
Issues
- Whether photocopied documents not falling within the exceptions in Section 46 of the Evidence Act are admissible in Industrial Court proceedings.
- Whether documents not addressed to the witness or authored by the witness are admissible in Industrial Court proceedings.
- Whether the Industrial Court is bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to civil proceedings.
Orders
- Preliminary objection overruled.
- CEX1, CEX2, CEX4, CEX7, and CEX9 admitted in evidence and marked CID1, CID2, CID4, CID7 and CID9.
- Claim set down for hearing.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (7)
- Nathan Bisaso v Ssenyonga & Another (Civil Suit No. 750 of 2017)
- Odongo Ochama Hussein v Abdul Rajabi (HCCA No. 19 of 2018)
- Tumushabe & Another v Anglo African Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1997)
- Lubega Moses & 5 Others v Roofings Uganda Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 166 of 2020)
- Moro Charles v Greenhill Secondary School (Labour Dispute Reference No. 10 of 2021)
- Southern Sun Hotels (Pty) Ltd v SA Commercial Catering & Allied Works Union and Another [2000] 21, IU 1315 (LAC)
- Jennifer Nsubuga v Michael Mukundane and Another (Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2018)
Cases citing this judgment (2)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.