Kizito v Uganda Police Force and Another (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2023)
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 the Uganda Police Force, though established by the Constitution and Police Act, is not a corporate body with legal capacity to sue or be sued in its own name. A suit against a non-existent legal person is fatally defective and cannot be cured by amendment. Employment-related claims against the Uganda Police Force must be brought against the Attorney General under Article 250 of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Government Proceedings Act. The application to amend and substitute parties was dismissed, and the underlying labour dispute reference collapsed.
Outcome
Application dismissed; underlying labour dispute reference dismissed as bad in law and incurable by amendment
Facts
The applicant, a former police constable employed by the Uganda Police Force from 2007, sought early retirement in 2019. He alleged that after reporting an assault by his supervisor to Jinja Road Police Station, he was removed from work schedules and deleted from the payroll in September 2020. He filed a labour dispute reference against the Uganda Police Force. The respondents contended that the applicant had been charged with neglect of duty, absconded without permission, was declared a deserter in June 2020, and was lawfully deleted from the payroll. The applicant then sought to amend his memorandum of claim to substitute the Uganda Police Force with the Attorney General, arguing that his former advocates had mistakenly sued the wrong party.
Issues
- Whether the applicant should be allowed to amend his memorandum of claim and substitute the Uganda Police Force with the Attorney General.
- Whether the Uganda Police Force is a juristic person capable of being sued in its own name.
- Whether a suit against a non-existent legal person can be cured by amendment through substitution of parties.
Orders
- Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 192 of 2023 is dismissed.
- Labour Dispute Reference No. 154 of 2021 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (21)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.98
- Judicature Act Cap.16 s.33
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 1 rr.10(2), (4), (13)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 6 rr.19, 31
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 52 rr.1, 3
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 211(1)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 212
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 213
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 214
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 250
- Police Act Cap.324 s.2
- Police Act Cap.324 s.3
- Police Act Cap.324 s.4
- Police Act Cap.324 s.13
- Police Act Cap.324 s.44
- Police Act Cap.324 Part VI
- Employment Act Cap.226 s.71(2)
- Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.283 s.2
- Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.283 Schedule 1
- Government Proceedings Act Cap.287 s.10
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap.205 s.115
Cases cited (21)
- Nakazi Margret v Kato James and Another (HCMA No. 134 of 2017)
- Mulowooza and Brothers Ltd v N. Shah and Co. Ltd [2010] UGSC 36
- Abdulrahman Elamin v Dhabi Group [2017] UGCA 60
- Kabagambe Grace v Mbabazi Resty & Kyenjojo Tom Council (HCMA No. 02 of 2022)
- Mulangira Simbwa v The Board of Trustees Miracle Centre and Another (HCMA No. 516 of 2006)
- F.X Mirimago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
- Gashirabake v Mwesigye [2022] UGIC 24
- Preg-Tech Communications Limited v Uganda Police Force [2021] UGPPDPAAT 8
- Bonabana Janet v Byamugisha Baby Coach & Sons Ltd & Ors (HCMA No. 100 of 2022)
- Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
- Namatovu and 2 Others v Seguya and 7 Others [2023] UGHCFD 97
- M/s Xsabo Power Limited v Great Lakes Energy Company [2024] UGHCCD 57
- Namyeka & 2 Ors v Parliamentary Commission [2019] UGCA 336
- Attorney General v Wazuri Medicare Ltd (HCMA No. 283 of 2023)
- Alenyo George William v The Chief Registrar, Courts of Judicature & Ors (CACP No. 32 of 2014)
- Tumukunde v Attorney General & Another [2020] UGHCCD 191
- SP Ajuna Mark v Attorney General and Another
- AIP Justus Kabagambe v The Inspector General of The Uganda Police Force [2008] UGHC 34
- Kaweesa v Attorney General
- Wakiso Mathias v Attorney General [2008] UGHC 34
- Luyenjie & 2 Others v Uganda [2024] UGHCICD 2
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.