Wakilii

Natukunda and Another v Kato (Review Cause No. 11 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 193 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of a Chief Magistrate's Court judgment and orders arising from Luwero Civil Suit No. 12 of 2016
Decision
Application dismissed; trial court's orders upheld with modified deadline for compliance

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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

The High Court held that the Chief Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute as it concerned a contract for services rather than a contract of service governed by the Employment Act 2006. The court further held that the trial magistrate acted within her discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules when imposing conditions for setting aside an ex parte judgment, and was not required to hear parties specifically on the terms set.

Outcome

Application dismissed; trial court's orders upheld with modified deadline for compliance

Facts

The respondent was engaged by the applicants to look after their 10-acre pineapple garden for two years at UGX 200,000 per month. The respondent had discretion to engage labour, with the applicants meeting labour costs. The applicants stopped visiting the plantation but the respondent continued working and incurred expenses of UGX 5,500,000. When the applicants returned, they took over the plantation and caused the respondent's arrest, confiscating his expense records. The respondent sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court for unpaid salary arrears of UGX 4,800,000 and expenses of UGX 5,500,000. The suit proceeded ex parte when the applicants failed to file a defence, resulting in judgment for the respondent. The applicants then applied to set aside the ex parte judgment, which was granted on condition of depositing UGX 7,500,000 each as security for costs. The applicants sought revision of the trial court's proceedings, claiming lack of jurisdiction and unlawful imposition of security for costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to entertain and handle the dispute in the main suit?
  2. Whether it was unlawful for the learned trial Magistrate to impose a condition of depositing security for costs which was not sought for and addressed by both parties before setting the condition?

Orders

  • Application for revision dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.
  • The order of the trial Magistrate shall be enforced.
  • The seven days set by the trial magistrate for compliance shall run from the date of this ruling.
  • In case the Applicants do not satisfy the set condition, the judgment and decree of the lower court shall be enforced against them.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Contract of Service vs Contract for Services — Distinction
A contract of service exists where an employee agrees to provide work and skill for remuneration and is subject to the employer's control in performance of that service. A contract for services involves an independent contractor who undertakes to produce a required result but retains discretion in execution and is not under the employer's control. The element of control and supervision of work is the defining test for distinguishing the two.
Employment & Labour — Jurisdiction — Employment Act 2006 — Magistrates' Courts
Section 93 of the Employment Act 2006 vests exclusive jurisdiction to hear employment disputes in labour officers only where the dispute arises from infringement of rights granted under the Act or breach of obligations under a contract of service. Where the dispute concerns a contract for services rather than a contract of service, magistrates' courts retain jurisdiction to determine the matter.
Employment & Labour — Contract for Services — Determination — Control Test
Where a person is engaged to manage agricultural land with discretion to engage and supervise labourers, responsibility to ensure quality of work, and the employer's role is limited to effecting payments and verifying costs, the relationship constitutes a contract for services rather than a contract of service, as the element of direct control and supervision is absent.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Terms and Conditions — Court's Discretion
Under Order 9 rules 12 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court setting aside an ex parte judgment and decree has discretion to do so upon such terms as it thinks fit, including payment into court as security for costs. The court is not required to hear parties on the specific terms it intends to set, but only to give reasons for its decision.
Civil Procedure — Judicial Discretion — Terms of Orders — Distinction from Remedies
While a court ought not to grant substantive remedies that are not pleaded and litigated by the parties, this principle does not apply to the terms upon which the court grants orders. The court has statutory discretion to impose conditions on orders without being moved by any party or giving a hearing specifically on such terms.
Administrative Law — Revision — High Court Jurisdiction — Grounds
The High Court may revise proceedings and decisions of magistrates' courts under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act where the lower court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally, with material irregularity, or injustice. The power is not exercisable where parties have not been heard or where exercise would cause serious hardship due to lapse of time.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mujib Juma v Adam Musa & Others (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2015)
  • Soroti Concern Worldwide v Kugonza (HC Civil Revision No. 1 of 2013)
  • Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru Milka (Civil Revision No. 2 of 2016)
  • Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
  • Waga B. Francis v Chief Administrative Officer Maracha District & Another (HC Civil Suit No. 5 of 2016)
  • Ready Mixed Concrete Southeast Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
  • Akugizibwe Francis and Another v Nyamahunge Kotido (High Court Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016)
  • Fangamin v Belex Tours and Travel Ltd (SCCA No. 10 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Natukunda and Another v Kato (Review Cause No. 11 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCD 193 (29 September 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.