Wakilii

Kikonyogo Robert v Kyambogo University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 112 2018; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2022)

Industrial Court · [2026] UGIC 11 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Industrial Court award in Labour Dispute Reference No. 112 of 2018 to correct alleged omission of reinstatement order
Decision
Application for review granted; reinstatement order added to original award

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 granted the application for review, interpreting its earlier award in LDR 112/2018 to include an order of reinstatement. The Court held that where it had found the applicant was unfairly removed from the payroll after completing probation and should have been integrated on permanent terms, the failure to order reinstatement was an inadvertent omission. The Court ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant within 14 days, effective from the date of the original award.

Outcome

Application for review granted; reinstatement order added to original award

Facts

The applicant was employed by the respondent university as Website Assistant on a one-year contract in 2010. After completing probation, his supervisors recommended confirmation on permanent terms, and the Vice Chancellor decided to make his appointment permanent in June 2011. However, the Human Resources Department advised he should be appointed on contract as Assistant Laboratory Technician retrospectively. The respondent issued a backdated 2014 appointment, followed by temporary appointments in 2015 and 2016, until the applicant was removed from the payroll in July 2017. In the original award in LDR 112/2018, the Industrial Court found the respondent had breached the contract by failing to confirm the applicant after probation, had treated him unfairly, and should have integrated him on permanent terms. The Court awarded salary arrears and general damages. The applicant then filed this application for review, contending the typed award omitted an order for reinstatement despite the Court's findings.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for review of the Industrial Court's award in LDR No. 112 of 2018
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Application for review granted.
  • The orders of the Industrial Court in LDR No. 112 of 2018 are interpreted to include an order of reinstatement of the Applicant in the Respondent's employment.
  • The Respondent shall, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of service of this Order, reinstate the Applicant to his former position of employment, or to a position of substantially equivalent status, remuneration, and benefits, effective from the 18th day of March 2022.
  • The Respondent shall restore all employment benefits, including but not limited to pension contributions, and other statutory entitlements, with effect from the 18th day of March 2022.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Industrial Court Awards — Interpretation under LADASA s.18
Under Section 18(1) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, the Industrial Court may review its award where a question arises as to the interpretation of the award within twenty-one days from the effective date, or where new and relevant facts materialize. The remedy of review is exercisable by way of interpreting a judgment to render it operable or executable.
Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. The error may be one of fact or of law.
Reinstatement — Powers of Industrial Court under LADASA
The Industrial Court has statutory power under Section 8(3)(d) of the Labour Disputes, Arbitration and Settlement Act to order reinstatement of an employee. An order of reinstatement does not usurp the statutory powers of a University Appointments Board under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, as reinstatement is a remedy at law provided by statute to cure irregularities in the employment relationship.
Reinstatement — Appropriateness in Public Service Employment
Reinstatement may be an appropriate remedy in circumstances where the employer is a public institution. The remedy is particularly suitable where the Court has found that an employee was unfairly removed from the payroll but not terminated or dismissed, thereby recognising a continuing employment relationship or continuity of service.
Review — Correction of Inadvertent Omissions
Where a court declares that an employee should have been integrated on permanent terms and was unfairly removed from the payroll, but fails to order reinstatement, such failure constitutes an inadvertent omission. Orders that are incidental and consequential to the court's findings may properly be added by correction on review.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (22)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kikonyogo_Robert_v_Kyambogo_University_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_No._112_2018;_MISCELLANEOUS_APPLICATION_NO._42_OF_2022)_[2026]_UGIC_11_(4_March_2026)
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.