Wakilii

Namudope v Tasco Industry Limited (Miscellaneous Application 164 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 121 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal on questions of fact from Labour Officer's award in Labour Dispute Complaint No. MGLSD/LC/234/2020
Decision
Leave to appeal granted; matter to proceed to full appeal

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 leave to appeal on questions of fact or mixed law and fact. The Court held that where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply, the application stands unopposed on facts but the respondent may still argue points of law. The Court found that the applicant's grounds, though framed as questions of fact, spoke to the Labour Officer's statutory powers to evaluate evidence and make awards, constituting points of law. The threshold for granting leave requires that the questions of fact must have formed part of the Labour Officer's decision and the applicant must show reason for arguing questions of fact.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted; matter to proceed to full appeal

Facts

The applicant, Namudope Judith, sought leave to appeal from the decision of a Labour Officer in Labour Complaint No. MGLSD/LC/234/2020 delivered on 8 March 2022. The applicant alleged questions of fact relating to her application for leave denied by the employer, contradicting evidence on hours of work, social security payments, remedies, and the Labour Officer's failure to evaluate evidence. The respondent, Tasco Industry Limited, did not file an affidavit in reply but raised preliminary objections in written submissions, arguing that the applicant had sued the wrong party and that the employment relationship was with a third-party recruitment agency (Wide Concepts Services Ltd), not the respondent. The Court noted that the respondent had not participated in the proceedings before the Labour Officer and was attempting to introduce new evidence from the Bar.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises matters of fact or mixed law and fact warranting leave to appeal from the Labour Officer's decision.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to appeal on questions of fact or mixed law and fact.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve the memorandum of appeal and skeletal arguments within 30 days from the date hereof.
  • The Parties shall appear before the Court within 45 days from the date hereof for further directions.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavit in Reply — Effect of Failure to File
Where an applicant supports an application by affidavit and the respondent does not file an affidavit in reply, the supporting evidence is credible and the facts stand unchallenged, and the application stands unopposed on the facts.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit in Reply — Respondent's Right to Argue Points of Law
A respondent who has not filed an affidavit in reply is entitled to address the court only on points of law and may not introduce factual matters or evidence from the Bar.
Employment & Labour — Appeals — Leave to Appeal on Questions of Fact
Under Section 94(2) of the Employment Act 2006, an appeal lies on a question of law, and with leave of the Industrial Court, on a question of fact forming part of the decision of the Labour Officer. The threshold for granting leave requires that the intending appellant must satisfy the Court that the question or questions of fact upon which they intend to anchor their appeal must have formed part of the decision of the Labour Officer and that they have reason for seeking to make arguments on questions of fact.
Employment & Labour — Appeals — Distinction Between Questions of Law and Questions of Fact
An error on a point of law occurs when a trial court misapprehends or misapplies a pertinent law or principle of law, misapprehends the nature, quality, and substance of the evidence, or draws wrong inferences from the proven facts. Issues or points of law relate to the interpretation and application of the law to the facts, while a question of fact relates to the findings arising from the evaluation of evidence.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
Additional or new evidence may be admitted on appeal only where the lower court refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or there is other substantial cause. Evidence not placed before the lower court and raised for the first time on appeal will not be admitted absent these conditions.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • DFCU Bank Limited v Godfrey Muwanga (H.C.M.A No. 240 of 2018)
  • Agro Supplier Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (H.C.C.S No. 379 of 2005)
  • H.G. Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd v GJ. Lutaya (SC Civil Application No. 14 of 1989)
  • Pastor Elidad Mulira v Mugisa Julius Kalemera (H.C. Civ Revision No. 0010 of 2017)
  • Twaha Kikomeko v Attorney General (H.C Taxation Appeal/Ref No. 06 of 2016)
  • Lubanga Jamada v Ddumba (C.A.C.A No. 10 of 2011)
  • Action Aid Uganda v David Mbarakye Tibekinga (LDA 028 of 2016)
  • National Social Security Fund v MTN Uganda Ltd & Anor (H.C.C.S No. 94 of 2009)
  • Mayanja Joshua Kajubi v Wasswa Amon Bwogi & Anor (H.C.M.A No. 44 of 2016)
  • Bureau Veritas Uganda Limited v Davlin Kamugisha (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 54 & 64 of 2017)
  • Geogas SA v Tranno Gas Limited (the Baleares) [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 215
  • The Aids Support Organisation (U) Ltd v Dr. Kenneth Mugisha (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2022)
  • Attorney General of Burundi v Secretary-General EAC and Hon. Fred Miikasa Mbidde (Appeal No. 02 of 2019)
  • Simon Peter Ochieng & Anor v Attorney General of Uganda (Appeal No. 4 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namudope_v_Tasco_Industry_Limited_(Miscellaneous_Application_164_of_2022)_[2023]_UGIC_121_(29_August_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.