Wakilii

Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH (Labour Dispute Reference 109 of 2020)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 89 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for costs following dismissal of labour dispute claim for claimant's non-attendance
Decision
Application for costs dismissed; no costs awarded to respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 25 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 25 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 33 citing cases on record, 33 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 declined to award costs to the successful respondent following dismissal of the claimant's labour dispute for non-attendance. The Court held that while costs ordinarily follow the event under the Civil Procedure Act, the Industrial Court's overriding objective of accessible labour justice makes the grant of costs the exception rather than the rule. Costs should only be awarded where the unsuccessful party has engaged in misconduct such as frivolous, vexatious, abusive or unreasonable conduct. The claimant's unexplained non-attendance, though justifying dismissal, did not constitute such misconduct.

Outcome

Application for costs dismissed; no costs awarded to respondent

Facts

The claimant filed Labour Dispute Claim No. 109 of 2020 against the respondent employer. When the matter came up for hearing on 11 October 2022, the claimant and his counsel were absent. The respondent's counsel prayed for dismissal and the Court dismissed the claim. The respondent then applied for costs, arguing that service had been effected on multiple occasions both directly and electronically on the claimant and his counsel, hearings had been set, a scheduling memorandum and trial bundles filed, and the respondent had expended resources preparing for hearing. The claimant's previous advocates had declined to accept service for want of instructions. The claimant was subsequently served via WhatsApp but did not appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent should be awarded costs following dismissal of the Claimant's labour dispute claim for non-attendance.

Orders

  • Application for costs dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs of any action shall follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders. The award of costs follows the event subject to the discretion of the court under Section 27(1). If a court decides to depart from the general rule, the court is obliged to give reasons for not awarding costs to a successful litigant.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court — Powers — Award of Costs
Under Section 8(2a)(c) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement)(Amendment) Act 2020, the Industrial Court has powers of the High Court to make orders as to costs and other reliefs as the Court may deem fit.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court — Costs — Exception Rather Than Rule
In the Industrial Court, the grant of costs is an exception rather than the rule. The Court was established to provide accessible labour justice in less exacting circumstances than ordinary civil courts. The reasoning is rooted in the nature of the employment relationship and relative bargaining power of the parties: whereas the employer has power of capital and can pay costs comfortably, the employee is in a precarious position after losing employment, and ordering costs would condemn the employee to destitution.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court — Costs — Grounds for Award
The Industrial Court will award costs against an unsuccessful party only in the direst of circumstances, where the unsuccessful party has been guilty of certain misconduct such as frivolous, vexatious, abusive, improper or unreasonable conduct. Mere non-attendance or unexplained abandonment of a claim, absent evidence of frivolous or vexatious intent, does not warrant an award of costs.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court — Access to Justice — Overriding Objective
The overriding objective of the Industrial Court is to encourage access to justice. Awarding costs to discourage parties from filing claims would defeat the purpose for which the Industrial Court was established. The Court was designed to be easily accessible to people without the aid of legal counsel, with expeditious and simple proceedings.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kwizera v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2008)
  • Kinyera v Victoria Seeds Ltd (Civil Suit No. 604 of 2015)
  • SDV Transami vs. Nsibambi Enterprises [2008] HCB 94
  • Candiru Alice v Amandua Fenisto & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014)
  • Hatega v Attorney General & Administrator General (Labour Dispute Claim No. 019 of 2014)
  • Okello v Entebbe Handling Services Ltd (Labour Dispute Claim No. 200 of 2014)
  • MTN Uganda Ltd v Katamba (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 004 of 2021)
  • Tanzania Breweries Limited Vs. Nancy Maronie, Labour Dispute no. 182 of 2015 (unreported)
  • M Blagojevch v Kaplan Services Pty Ltd [2000] AIRC 202

Cases citing this judgment (25)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalule_v_Deustche_Gesellschaft_Fuer_Internationale_Zuzammenarbeit_(GIZ)_GMBH_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_109_of_2020)_[2023]_UGIC_89_(6_February_2023)
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.