Kakooza and 16 Others v Sheraton Kampala Hotel (Labour Dispute Reference 202 of 2022)

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 Industrial Court held that the Civil Procedure Rules apply to its proceedings where the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act and Rules are silent. Order 1 Rule 8 CPR, which governs representative suits, is mandatory. The claimants failed to obtain a representative order before filing their claim. The memorandum of claim named only one claimant as a party, and the appointment of an agent under Section 20 LADASA for legal representation does not constitute proper authorization for a representative action. The claim was dismissed as incompetent with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Claim dismissed as incompetent for failure to obtain a representative order; claimants directed to obtain proper authorization before refiling

Facts

Seventeen former employees of Sheraton Kampala Hotel filed a labour dispute reference claiming unfair termination from employment on 3 November 2020. The complaint was initially lodged with the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development by four individuals on behalf of themselves and colleagues. After unsuccessful mediation, the matter was referred to the Industrial Court. A power of attorney dated 12 August 2021 appointed Richard Jimmy Dhobuazi as agent for 18 individuals. The memorandum of claim filed on 5 December 2021 named only Kakooza Juma and 16 others, without identifying the other claimants by name. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the claim was bad in law for failure to obtain a representative order under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

1. Whether the claimants are required to obtain a representative order under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the Civil Procedure Rules apply to proceedings before the Industrial Court where the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act and Rules are silent.
3. Whether the claim as filed is properly constituted as a representative action.

Orders

• Labour Dispute Reference No. 202 of 2021 is dismissed as incompetent.
• No order as to costs.
• The claimants are directed to obtain a representative order before advancing their cause any further.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 s.20
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 Rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 Rule 1

Cases cited (10)

• Autotune Ltd v Barozi Swaldo (LDMA 029 of 2022)
• Bunyoro Kitara Reparations Agency Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 23 of 2016)
• Captain Charles Karabarinde and 177 Others v Meridiana African Airlines and Another (Labour Claim No. 25 of 2015)
• Joseph Kasozi and Others v Umeme Ltd (HCCS 188 of 2010)
• Kiiza and Others v Uganda Wildlife Authority and Another (HCCS 39 of 2010)
• Olweny and Others v Oyoo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2018)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
• Ibrahim Buwembo and Others v UTODA Ltd (HCCS No. 664 of 2003)
• Paul Kanyima v Rugoora [1982] HCB 33
• Henry B Kamoga and Others v Bank of Uganda (HCCS No. 62 of 2009)

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.

• Joseph Otim and 5 Others v Attorney General (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Cause No. 003 of 2025)

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