Wakilii

Mutono v Kampala International University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 335 of 2017)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 15 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to jurisdiction raised by respondent in labour dispute proceedings
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

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 has jurisdiction to determine claims in tort, including defamation, arising out of an employment relationship. Section 93(6) of the Employment Act restricts only the labour officer's jurisdiction over such claims, not the Industrial Court's. A memorandum of claim in an employment dispute will not be struck out merely because an ancillary defamation claim lacks particulars, where the primary cause of action is the employment dispute itself.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The claimant, Mutono Laban, filed a labour dispute against Kampala International University arising from his employment. The memorandum of claim sought various remedies including a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful, salary arrears, leave pay, social security benefits, payment in lieu of notice, and damages including damages for defamation. When the matter came up for scheduling on 12th October 2022, the respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to determine a claim for defamation and that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action for defamation because the actual defamatory words and persons to whom they were published were not pleaded. The claimant did not file submissions in response.

Issues

  1. Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine a claim for defamation arising out of an employment relationship.
  2. Whether the memorandum of claim discloses a cause of action for defamation and should be struck out for lack of particulars.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection as to jurisdiction overruled.
  • Preliminary objection to strike out the memorandum of claim overruled.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Respondent to file a fresh Trial Bundle by 10th January 2023.
  • Main claim to be heard on 19th January 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Jurisdiction of Industrial Court — Claims in Tort Arising from Employment Relationship
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to determine claims in tort, including defamation, arising out of an employment relationship. Section 93(6) of the Employment Act restricts the jurisdiction of the labour officer from entertaining claims in tort arising out of the employment relationship but does not oust the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
A court's jurisdiction is not to be ousted easily or fleetingly. The jurisdiction of courts of law must be guarded jealously and should not be dispensed with too lightly. Where a statutory provision restricting jurisdiction is clear and unambiguous, the words themselves give the intention of the legislature.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court Jurisdiction — Ancillary Claims
Where a matter before the Industrial Court is fundamentally a labour dispute but with aspects of claims related to or originating from the labour dispute capable of being resolved at once with the dispute, the court has jurisdiction to dispose of the whole matter to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Tort Law — Defamation — Pleading Requirements
For a court to find a statement complained of as being defamatory, the actual words must be set forth verbatim in the plaint and the persons to whom publication was made must be mentioned. A plaint in a defamation suit that does not allege persons to whom publication was made nor that the words uttered were false and were published maliciously does not disclose a cause of action and is bad in law.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Access to Justice
Where a memorandum of claim in an employment dispute seeks several remedies beyond an impugned ancillary claim for defamation, striking out the entire memorandum as bad in law would not serve the interests of justice and would deprive the claimant of meaningful access to justice. The defective ancillary claim does not vitiate the primary employment cause of action.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (12)

  • Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru Milka (H.C.C.R No. 64 of 2011)
  • Okurut Joseph and others v New Bubajjwe Primary School (LDR 04 of 2015)
  • Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian 's' v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited [1989] KLR 1
  • Okou R. Constant v Stanbic Bank (LDC 171 of 2014)
  • Habre International Co Ltd vs Kassam and Others [1999] 1 EA 125
  • George Katendegwa v Samsung (LD 144 of 2014)
  • Jason Njeru v Imperial Bank Uganda Ltd (LDR 172 of 2015)
  • Engineer John Eric Mugenyi v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd (C.A No. 167 of 2018)
  • Yusuf Sembatya Kimbowa v The Editor Observer & 2 Others (H.C.C.S No. 482 of 2018)
  • Rutare S. Leonidas v. Rudakubana Augustine and Kagame Eric William [1978] H.C.B.243
  • Karaka Sira v. Tiromwe Adonia [1977] H.C.B. 26
  • Angwee Kalanga v Odongo Milton and Openy Vincent (H.C.C.S No. 0065 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutono_v_Kampala_International_University_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_No._335_of_2017)_[2022]_UGIC_15_(19_December_2022)
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.