Former Employees of G4S Security Services v G4S Security Services Ltd (Civil Appeal 18 of 2010)

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. While the High Court possessed unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution to hear employment disputes (which an Act of Parliament cannot oust), the procedure the appellants adopted was wrong: applying to the High Court merely to execute a Labour Officer's award, in a matter the court never heard, was an exercise of neither its original nor appellate jurisdiction. The trial judge should have taken cognizance of the respondent's notice of appeal and pending stay-of-execution application before ordering execution; doing otherwise would occasion a miscarriage of justice. The dismissal does not bar the appellants from filing a fresh suit on the merits. Each party bears its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; each party to bear its own costs; appellants left at liberty to file a fresh suit in the High Court on the merits of their claims.

Facts

Two hundred and one former employees of the respondent security company lodged a labour dispute with the Kampala District Labour Office in November 2006, claiming breaches of their employment contracts and the Employment Act 2006, including repatriation and long service awards. In February 2007 the Labour Officer arbitrated and awarded the appellants a total of UGX 122,800,000 for repatriation and long service. The respondent filed a notice of appeal to the Industrial Court and an application to stay execution, but neither could be heard because the Industrial Court was not yet operational. The appellants then applied to the High Court, which ordered that the award be executed. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the High Court, holding the trial judge should have taken cognizance of the pending stay application and intended appeal before sanctioning execution. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to properly re-evaluate the evidence on record, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether the High Court erred in ordering execution of the Labour Officer's award before disposing of the respondent's pending application for a stay of execution and intended appeal.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs in this Court and in the courts below.
• Dismissal of the appeal not to bar the appellants from filing a fresh suit before the High Court on the merits of their claims.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Employment Act 2006 s.13
• Employment Act 2006 s.93(1)
• Employment Act 2006 s.93(3)
• Employment Act 2006 s.93(4)
• Employment Act 2006 s.93(5)
• Employment Act 2006 s.93(8)
• Employment Act 2006 s.94
• Labour Disputes (Arbitration & Settlement) Act 2006
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 article 139(1)
• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.14(1)
• Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap. 345 s.14(1)

Cases cited (6)

• Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2007)
• Rabo Enterprises (U) Ltd & Mt Elgon Hardwares Ltd v Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2003)
• Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
• Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Begumisa v Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Grand Hotel (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Zakayo v Berkeley Energy Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 319 of 2020)

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