G4S Security Services (U) Ltd v 201 Former Employees of G4S Security Services (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2009)

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 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in ordering execution of a partial arbitral award of the District Labour Officer without first inquiring into the propriety of the award and the pending application for stay of execution. Once counsel raised concerns about the subject matter, the judge was obliged to examine whether the Labour Officer had properly exercised his mandate under section 13(1) of the Employment Act. The appellant could not be prejudiced by the non-constitution of the Industrial Court, over which it had no control. The matter required an exhaustive appraisal and the appeal succeeded.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the matter to be given exhaustive appraisal rather than proceeding to execution

Facts

The respondents, 201 former employees of G4S Security Services (U) Ltd, filed Labour Dispute No. CB 954/2006 with the Kampala District Labour Office claiming long service awards, repatriation, overtime, weekly rest, daily lunch break, annual leave, sick leave and emergency leave. The Labour Officer mediated and made a partial award of Shs. 122,800,000 in respect of long service awards and repatriation. Because the Industrial Court had not been constituted, the respondents could not execute the award. The appellant, dissatisfied, took steps to appeal: it lodged a notice of appeal in the Labour Office and filed a notification of dispute, and on 21 March 2007 filed an application for stay of execution which remained unheard. The respondents subsequently filed HCMA No. 653/2007 seeking execution of the award. On 20 July 2009 the High Court ordered execution. The appellant appealed, contending the judge ordered execution without examining the propriety of the award or disposing of the pending stay application.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge was right to enter judgment in favour of the respondents without hearing Labour Dispute No. LB 954/2006 on its merits.
2. Whether the trial judge evaluated the evidence properly before ordering execution of the arbitral award.
3. Whether the trial judge exercised the inherent powers of court correctly in holding that the respondents were free to execute the award when contrary evidence existed.
4. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

• Appeal allowed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Employment Act 2006 s.13(1)(a)
• Employment Act 2006 s.94(1)
• Employment Act 2006 s.94(2)
• Judicature Act (Cap 13) s.33
• Judicature Act s.14(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 and 3
• Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act No. 8 of 2006 s.44(2)
• Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court) (Procedure) Rules S.I 224-3, Rule 3
• Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court) (Procedure) Rules, Rule 4

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.

• Batambuze Samuel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No 47 of 2018)
• Former Employees of G4S Security Services v G4S Security Services Ltd (Civil Appeal 18 of 2010)

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