Wakilii

Mbbale and 59 Others v Makerere University (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2024)

Industrial Court · [2025] UGIC 20 · 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. 022 of 2015
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; court directed repatriation or reimbursement process to be completed within specified timeframes

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 court declined to hold the Respondent in contempt for failing to repatriate the Applicants, finding that the Respondent had just cause for non-compliance as it was awaiting specific repatriation details from the Applicants. The Respondent had complied with the monetary aspects of the earlier decree. The court directed the Registrar to obtain certified repatriation costs from the Ministry of Public Service and Ministry of Works and Transport, and ordered repatriation or reimbursement within 45 days.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; court directed repatriation or reimbursement process to be completed within specified timeframes

Facts

The Applicants brought a contempt application against Makerere University for failing to comply with a court order dated 6 March 2023 requiring the Respondent to repatriate them to their homes. The order arose from Labour Dispute Reference No. 022 of 2015. The Respondent had complied with the monetary awards totalling UGX 632,454,000 but had not repatriated the Applicants. On 13 March 2023, the Applicants' lawyers requested a repatriation plan, which the Respondent did not provide. The Applicants claimed they had arranged their own repatriation at a cost of UGX 53,515,500 and sought reimbursement, plus general damages, exemplary damages, a fine for contempt, and committal of the Respondent's officers. The Respondent argued it was awaiting specific repatriation details from the Applicants and was willing to comply once these were provided. The Respondent also noted that a fire had destroyed some of its records.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent should be held in contempt of court for failing to repatriate the Applicants as ordered.
  2. Whether the Respondent had just cause or lawful excuse for non-compliance with the repatriation order.
  3. What remedies, if any, should be granted to the Applicants.

Orders

  • Application for contempt dismissed.
  • The Registrar of the Industrial Court is directed to obtain a certified cost of repatriation of the Applicants from the Ministry of Public Service in conjunction with the Ministry of Works and Transport.
  • All Applicants still within the district of Kampala shall be repatriated within 45 days of this order.
  • All Applicants who have self-repatriated shall be entitled to reimbursement as per the assessment by the Ministry of Public Service and Ministry of Works.
  • A joint report duly executed by Counsel for the Applicants and Respondent listing the status of the repatriation of the Applicants or their reimbursement shall be filed with the Registrar within 60 days from the date of this order.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements of Contempt — Standard of Proof
To establish contempt of court, it must be proven that: (i) there is a lawful court order; (ii) the potential contemnor was aware of the court order; (iii) the potential contemnor failed to comply with the order; and (iv) the potential contemnor lacks just cause or lawful excuse for the violation. The standard of proof is higher than the balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt.
Contempt of Court — Just Cause — Defence to Non-Compliance
Just cause, derived from the Latin 'justa causa', means a legally sufficient reason for non-compliance with a court order. A potential contemnor who demonstrates a justiciable cause for non-compliance, such as awaiting necessary particulars to execute the order, will not be held in contempt where there is no pattern of obstinate defiance.
Contempt of Court — Sparing Use of Contempt Power
The power to punish for contempt of court should be used sparingly and only in serious cases or where the court is compelled to punish by reason of persistent and obstinate defiance and interference by the contemnor.
Industrial Court — Powers — Section 8(3)(d) LADASA
Section 8(3)(d) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act confers jurisdiction on the Industrial Court to make effective orders and relief that it may deem fit. Read together with Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may determine questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree without requiring a separate suit.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mbbale_and_59_Others_v_Makerere_University_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_48_of_2024)_[2025]_UGIC_20_(27_February_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.