Wakilii

Kokeyo v Peacock Paints Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 110 of 2019)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 19 · 2023 Claim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference from Kampala Capital City Directorate of Gender, Community Services, and Production following complaint of unfair termination
Decision
Claim dismissed on grounds of illegality arising from failure to obtain valid work permit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that the employment contract between a Kenyan national and a Ugandan employer was illegal and unenforceable where neither party obtained the required work permit under the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act. The court found that Section 59 UCICA expressly prohibits employment of non-nationals without a valid entry permit, creating a shared responsibility between employer and employee. The claim was dismissed on grounds of illegality, with no order as to costs given both parties' culpability.

Outcome

Claim dismissed on grounds of illegality arising from failure to obtain valid work permit

Facts

Paul Kokeyo, a Kenyan national, was employed by Peacock Paints Limited as Sales and Marketing Manager in December 2015 at a monthly salary of UGX 3,170,000. Neither party obtained a work permit for the claimant. On 24 March 2017, the claimant was asked to hand over office to Isaac Walusimbi. The claimant testified that he was told the respondent could no longer afford his services. The respondent contended that the claimant had failed to produce a valid work permit and had absconded from work. The claimant had previously worked for Bata Shoe Company between 2012 and 2014 with an entry permit. The parties disagreed on whose responsibility it was to process the work permit. The claimant filed a complaint with the Kampala Capital City Directorate of Gender, Community Services, and Production, which referred the matter to the Industrial Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant's employment was unlawfully terminated?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Labour Dispute Reference No. 110 of 2019 dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Migrant Workers — Work Permit Requirements — Statutory Illegality
Section 59(1) of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act Cap.66 expressly prohibits employment of non-Ugandan nationals without a valid entry permit, and such prohibition renders an employment contract illegal and unenforceable.
Employment & Labour — Migrant Workers — Work Permit — Shared Responsibility
The responsibility to obtain a work permit for a non-national employee is a shared duty between employer and employee under the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act and the Immigration Control Regulations, and both parties commit an offence if a work permit is not obtained.
Employment & Labour — Statutory Illegality — Distinction from Common Law Illegality
Statutory illegality applies where legislation expressly prohibits the making of a contract so that it is unenforceable by either party, and in such cases the knowledge or culpability of the parties is irrelevant as the court is bound to respect the statutory provision.
Employment & Labour — Illegality — Effect on Employment Claims
Where an employment contract is tainted with illegality, the Latin maxim 'Ex turpi causa non oritur actio' applies and no party can benefit from the illegal action, resulting in dismissal of the claim.
Employment & Labour — Costs — Employment Disputes — Exception to General Rule
In employment disputes, the grant of costs to the successful party is an exception on account of the nature of the employment relationship, except where it is established that the unsuccessful party has filed a frivolous action or is guilty of some form of misconduct.
Employment & Labour — Migrant Workers — East African Community — Free Movement of Workers
Under the East African Community Common Market Protocol and Section 6(2) of the Employment Act, the Industrial Court has a duty to promote and guarantee equality of opportunity for migrant workers who are lawfully within the territory of Uganda, but such protection extends only to lawful migrant workers.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Employment Act 2006 s.2
  • Employment Act 2006 s.4
  • Employment Act 2006 s.6(1)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.6(2)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.58(3)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.59(1)
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act Cap.66 s.53(3)
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act Cap.66 s.59
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act Cap.66 s.59(1)
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act Cap.66 s.59(2)
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Regulations S.I. 16-2004 Regulation 9
  • Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Regulations S.I. 16-2004 Regulation 14
  • East African Community Treaty Article 104
  • Protocol for the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market Article 10
  • East African Community Common Market (Free Movement of Workers) Regulations Regulation 13(1)(h)

Cases cited (10)

  • Uganda Development Bank v Florence Mufumba (Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2015)
  • [2021] HC MD-LAB-APP-AAA-2020-00072
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Ahmed Bholim v Car and General Ltd
  • Ahmed Bholim v Car and General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Ivy Odekina v Judith Chikale [2019] EWCA Civ 1393
  • Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
  • Komakech Geofrey & Another v Rose Akol Okullo (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010)
  • Belvoir Finance Co. Ltd v Harold G. Cole Ltd [1967] 2 All E.R 904
  • Joseph Kalule v Giz (Labour Dispute Reference No. 109 of 2020)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Kokeyo_v_Peacock_Paints_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_110_of_2019)_[2023]_UGIC_19_(6_September_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.