Wakilii

Finance & Allied Workers Union v Bank of Baroda (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 255 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 42 · 2025 Application Dismissed — Lack of Jurisdiction AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under constitutional and statutory provisions for enforcement of union recognition rights and collective bargaining
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application concerning union recognition and collective bargaining where the Labour Unions Act provides a specific statutory remedy through the Industrial Court. Section 23(6) of the Labour Unions Act directs aggrieved parties to refer disputes to the Industrial Court where the Registrar declines to make an order. The Industrial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court but is the appropriate forum for statutory labour union disputes. Fundamental rights enforcement procedures cannot be used to circumvent specific statutory remedies provided in labour legislation.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant union sought orders compelling the respondent bank to recognize it, sign a recognition agreement, and commence collective bargaining, alleging the bank refused recognition based on an existing agreement with another union. The applicant claimed the bank's employees who were its members were being forced to join a different union. The applicant complained to the Registrar of Labour Unions who allegedly ignored the complaint. Rather than referring the matter to the Industrial Court as provided under section 24(6) of the Labour Unions Act, the applicant filed a miscellaneous cause in the High Court Civil Division under constitutional provisions and the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's complaint concerning union recognition and collective bargaining rights.
  2. Whether it is lawful for the respondent to refuse to recognize the applicant union and sign a recognition agreement on account of an existing recognition agreement with another union.
  3. Whether the respondent's refusal to recognize the applicant union on account of the National Tripartite Charter on Labour Relations infringed the rights of the applicant's members.
  4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Union Recognition — Jurisdiction — Proper Forum for Statutory Labour Union Disputes
Where the Labour Unions Act provides a specific statutory remedy through reference to the Industrial Court in cases where the Registrar declines to make an order under section 23(6), that specific remedy must be pursued rather than invoking the general jurisdiction of the High Court under constitutional human rights enforcement procedures.
Administrative Law — Statutory Remedies — Specific Legislation Prevailing Over General Provisions
Specific laws prevail over general laws in matters of statutory application and interpretation. Where specific legislation prescribes a particular forum and procedure for resolving a dispute, that statutory remedy must be exhausted before invoking general constitutional enforcement mechanisms.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — High Court Unlimited Jurisdiction — Limitation by Specific Statute
While Article 139 of the Constitution confers unlimited original jurisdiction on the High Court, the Industrial Court established under Article 129(1)(d) has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court in employment and labour matters. Where specific legislation vests jurisdiction in the Industrial Court for particular labour disputes, that forum is appropriate notwithstanding the High Court's general unlimited jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights Enforcement — Abuse of Process — Disguised Labour Claims
Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules and Act cannot be used to institute an action for enforcement of rights specifically prescribed under labour legislation. Using fundamental rights enforcement procedures to circumvent statutory labour remedies constitutes an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru (High Court Civil Revision No. 2 of 2016)
  • 201 Former Employees of G4S Security Services (U) Limited v G4S Security Services (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2010)
  • Ruhinda Asaph Ntegye and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2016)
  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru and 133 Others (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2019)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Finance & Allied Workers Union v Bank of Baroda (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 255 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 42 (26 February 2025)
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.