Wakilii

Entebbe Handling Services T a National Aviation Services (NAS) v Okello (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 21 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of award in Labour Dispute No. 200 of 2014
Decision
Award varied to correct arithmetical error; applicant to pay respondent UGX 19,584,000 with interest at 15% per annum from date of original award

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 found an arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record in the computation of the award in Labour Dispute No. 200 of 2014. The original award of UGX 22,074,741 for 50% of basic pay over 4 years was incorrect. The correct computation based on a monthly basic pay of UGX 816,000 multiplied by 48 months equals UGX 39,168,000, of which 50% is UGX 19,584,000. The application for review succeeded in part, and the award was varied to reflect the correct amount.

Outcome

Award varied to correct arithmetical error; applicant to pay respondent UGX 19,584,000 with interest at 15% per annum from date of original award

Facts

The applicant employer sought review of an award in Labour Dispute No. 200 of 2014 on grounds of an arithmetical error. The original award granted the respondent employee 50% of basic pay over 4 years, computed as UGX 22,074,741. The applicant contended the correct computation should be UGX 19,584,000. The respondent's basic monthly pay was UGX 816,000. The respondent opposed the application and maintained the award was properly computed. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the argumentative nature of the respondent's affidavit in reply, which the court rejected after review.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for review and setting aside the award in Labour Dispute No. 200 of 2014.
  2. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply was argumentative and should be struck out.
  3. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the computation of the award.

Orders

  • Application succeeds in part.
  • The Award and Order entered and delivered on 14 August 2020 by the Industrial Court in Labour Dispute No. 200 of 2014 in respect of 50% of payment basic pay of 4 years amounting to UGX 22,074,741 is set aside.
  • The award of UGX 22,074,741 is substituted by an order for the Applicant to pay the Respondent 50% of payment basic pay of 4 years amounting to UGX 19,584,000.
  • All other orders flowing from the award are maintained.
  • Interest on the sum of UGX 19,584,000 shall be computed at 15% per annum from the date of the award until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. The error may be one of fact or law.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Form and Content — Argumentative Matter
An affidavit is meant to adduce evidence and not to argue the application. It should contain facts and not arguments or matters of law, and shall not unnecessarily set forth matters of hearsay or argumentative matter.
Employment & Labour — Awards and Remedies — Computation of Awards — Arithmetical Errors
Where an award contains a simple arithmetical error in computing monetary compensation, such error constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review and correction of the award.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Joyce L. Kusulakweguya v Haider Somani & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2007)
  • Kalokola Kaloli v Nduga Robert (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2014)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 86

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Entebbe_Handling_Services_T_a_National_Aviation_Services_(NAS)_v_Okello_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_No._87_of_2022)_[2022]_UGIC_21_(20_October_2022)
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.