Wakilii

Kamuhanda and 27 Others v MS Katende, Ssempebwa and Company Advocates (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 147 of 2019)

Industrial Court · [2025] UGIC 11 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Labour Dispute Reference No. 165/2015
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; order of 26 February 2019 vacated

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

Held that the respondent law firm was not in contempt of court. The court found that by the time the firm received USD 11,517.68 from Sheraton Kampala Hotel on 14 August 2017, no enforceable court order existed preventing such payment. Labour officers' directives issued during mediation proceedings have no injunctive effect beyond the mediation process. The Acting Registrar's order in Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2017 was issued on 14 September 2017, one month after the money had already been paid. The Industrial Court's order of 26 February 2019 was made per incuriam and was vacated.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; order of 26 February 2019 vacated

Facts

The applicants were former employees of C and A Tours who claimed unlawful termination without payment of terminal benefits. They filed Labour Dispute Reference No. 165 of 2015. During mediation proceedings before various labour officers, directives were issued to Sheraton Kampala Hotel to withhold payment of USD 22,134.70 owed to C and A Tours pending resolution of the labour complaint. The respondent law firm, acting for C and A Tours, commenced debt recovery proceedings in March 2017 and received USD 11,517.68 from Sheraton Kampala Hotel on 14 August 2017. The applicants had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2017 in July 2017 seeking attachment of the funds, and the Acting Registrar issued an order on 14 September 2017 directing Sheraton to deposit USD 22,134.70 in court. The applicants alleged the respondent firm acted in contempt by receiving the money despite pending proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent law firm was in contempt of court directives and orders compelling it to deposit USD 11,517.68 in court pending determination of Labour Dispute Reference No. 165 of 2015.
  2. Whether there was a valid and enforceable court order in existence at the time the respondent firm received the impugned funds on 14 August 2017.
  3. Whether directives issued by labour officers during mediation proceedings have injunctive effect.
  4. Whether the Industrial Court's order dated 26 February 2019 was properly made.

Orders

  • The order issued on 26 February 2019 by the Industrial Court per incuriam is hereby vacated.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Requirements for Finding Contempt
For an applicant in contempt proceedings to succeed, the applicant must prove that there was a clear and unambiguous court order which clearly states when, where, and to whom it applies, that the alleged contemnor was aware of the existence of the order, and that the contemnor willfully disobeyed it or intentionally disobeyed the order.
Labour Officers — Powers During Mediation Proceedings
Directives issued by labour officers during mediation proceedings do not have injunctive effect as administrative orders would have. Where a labour officer handles a matter as a mediator rather than as an adjudicator, any orders arising out of mediation proceedings are not enforceable orders and have no legal basis beyond preserving the status quo during the pendency of the mediation proceedings.
Labour Officers — Adjudicatory versus Mediatory Functions
Section 13 of the Employment Act empowers a labour officer to handle matters as an adjudicator, conciliator, or arbitrator. Where a labour officer chooses to handle a matter as an adjudicator, the labour officer is empowered to issue an order in respect of any matter adjudicated upon, and such an order would have injunctive effect and can only be varied or vacated by the Industrial Court on appeal.
Contempt of Court — Necessity of Existing Order
A party cannot be held in contempt of a nonexistent order. Mere knowledge of the pendency of proceedings or a pending ruling is not an order for which a party can be held in contempt. There must be an order, whether final or injunctive, that must be disobeyed for one to be held in contempt.
Court Orders — Enforcement of Orders by Issuing Court
Ordinarily, a court should enforce its own orders. Where an order is issued by a registrar or subordinate judicial officer, contempt proceedings for breach of that order should be filed before the officer who issued the order, not before a different bench or panel of the same court.
Court Orders — Orders Made Per Incuriam
A court has the responsibility of preventing abuse of the process of court by ensuring it makes orders that are orderly, are in accordance with the law, and that ensure justice is done. An order made per incuriam, being made in error or without proper legal foundation, is incompetent and should be vacated.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Angelina Lamunu Langoya v Olweny George William (Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2019)
  • Nkamushaba v Makerere University and Others (Miscellaneous Application Nos. 540 and 709 of 2018)
  • Ayebazibwe Raymond v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 283 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamuhanda_and_27_Others_VS_MS_Katende,_Ssempebwa_and_Company_Advocates_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_147_of_2019)_[2025]_UGIC_11_(20_January_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.