Wakilii

Kasito Robert v Service & Computer Industries (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 5 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 129 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Labour Officer/Assistant Commissioner at Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development
Decision
Appeal dismissed; labour officer's finding that termination was unlawful set aside

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

The Industrial Court held that an intern engaged under an internship contract is not an employee within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act. The court found that the appellant, having signed an internship contract for one year receiving a stipend, could not claim employee status or remedies reserved for employees. The court further held that by refusing to obey his supervisor's lawful order to relocate to Kampala, the appellant committed insubordination and locked himself out of the respondent's control, thereby terminating his own internship. The appeal was dismissed and the labour officer's decision set aside in its entirety.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; labour officer's finding that termination was unlawful set aside

Facts

The appellant was engaged by the respondent as an intern on 1 July 2020, receiving a monthly stipend of UGX 700,000. He signed an internship contract for one year. He was deployed to Mbarara in August 2020 and relocated to Kampala on 6 January 2021. On 1 March 2021, his internship was terminated. The respondent's witnesses testified that the appellant was recalled to Kampala following customer complaints about his absence from duty. The appellant admitted that his supervisor sent him a truck to relocate to Kampala but he refused to board it, remaining in Mbarara until July 2020. The appellant filed a complaint with the labour officer seeking various remedies. The labour officer found he was not an employee but that his termination was unlawful under section 66 of the Employment Act and awarded some remedies. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Labour erred in law when he failed to find that the Appellant was an employee.
  2. Whether the Assistant Commissioner erred in law when he failed to award the Appellant the remedies sought including payment in lieu of notice, 19 days for March 2021, NSSF and PAYE, and payment for the remaining period of his contract.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Labour officer's decision set aside in its entirety.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment Status — Distinction Between Intern and Employee
An intern engaged under an internship contract is not an employee within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act, which defines an employee as a person who has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship contract. Where parties enter an internship contract and the terms clearly state that the person is engaged as an intern for a specified period receiving a stipend, with no other rights spelled out, the person cannot claim employee status or remedies reserved for employees under the Employment Act.
Interpretation of Employment Contracts — Literal Interpretation
When interpreting the terms of a contract of employment, the court must give the ordinary meaning of any written agreement unless there is proof of ambiguity on the face of the contract itself. The terms of the contract must be strictly and literally interpreted. After accepting an appointment on the terms stipulated in a contract, a party cannot turn around to demand what was not stipulated in the same contract.
Literal Rule of Interpretation
Statutes must be interpreted according to their literal meaning and sentences according to their grammatical meaning. Where the Employment Act has not defined internship, the legislature did not construe it to be employment.
Insubordination — Refusal to Obey Lawful Orders
An intern who refuses to obey a lawful order of his supervisor to relocate as directed commits an act of insubordination. Where an intern willfully refuses to board transport provided by the employer to relocate him to a new duty station, he locks himself out of the employer's control and cannot claim that he was denied means to return or that he was entitled to remedies for unlawful termination.
Disciplinary Proceedings — Employee Must Avail Himself
Even where it is mandatory for an employer to comply with section 66 of the Employment Act requiring disciplinary proceedings before termination, the employee must avail himself to such proceedings. An employee who locks himself out of the employer's control by refusing to obey lawful orders cannot claim he was not given a fair hearing.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Narensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Court of Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Mrs Scrotoroza Nyamuchoncho Vs Attorney General, Permanent Secretary Ministry Of Public Service & Others Miss. Cause No. 241 of 2017
  • Wells v New Brunswick [1999] 1 S.C.R
  • Babu Mariant v Barclays Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 134 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasito_Robert_v_Service_&_Computer_Industries_(U)_Ltd_(Labour_Dispute_Appeal_No._5_of_2022)_[2023]_UGIC_129_(9_May_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.