Okello v Hariss International Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 328 of 2017)

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.

Holding

The Industrial Court held that under Section 18 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006, it is not bound by strict rules of evidence in civil proceedings. The Court admitted all 48 contested documents as identification documents subject to formal proof, ruling that relevance, authenticity, and materiality can be determined after evidence is tested during cross-examination. The documents were marked CID 1 to CID 48 but do not stand proven as exhibits.

Outcome

Contested documents admitted as identification documents subject to formal proof at hearing

Facts

The Claimant brought a labour dispute reference arising from termination of employment. At scheduling on 16 September 2022, the Respondent's counsel objected to 48 documents the Claimant sought to adduce, arguing they did not refer to the Claimant, were not authored or addressed to him, were operational documents of the Respondent not connected to the Claimant, did not relate to the issues before the Court, and were not in original or certified form. The objection was based on grounds of authenticity, materiality, competence, and identification under the Evidence Act. The Claimant's counsel submitted that authenticity was not in dispute, the documents were in the Respondent's possession, and issues of materiality and competence should be handled at hearing. The Court directed written arguments on the admissibility of the contested documents.

Issues

1. Whether 48 documents sought to be adduced by the Claimant should be admitted in evidence in a labour dispute reference.
2. Whether the Industrial Court is bound by strict rules of evidence in civil proceedings when determining admissibility of documents.
3. Whether contested documents should be admitted as identification documents subject to formal proof.

Orders

• The contested documents shall be admitted as identification documents and marked CID 1 to CID 48.
• The documents admitted as identification documents do not stand proven and are not exhibits.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 s.18
• Evidence Act Cap.6 s.2(1)
• Evidence Act Cap.6 s.6
• Evidence Act Cap.6 s.7
• Evidence Act Cap.6 s.61
• Evidence Act Cap.6 s.63
• Evidence Act Cap.6 s.71(5)

Cases cited (4)

• Kaggwa Michael v Olal Mark & Others (HCCA No. 10 of 2017)
• Moro Charles v Greenhill Secondary School (Labour Dispute Reference No. 10 of 2021)
• Collin Lukiiko v China Railway No.3 Engineering Group Co Uganda Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 52 of 2020)
• Kirya Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016)

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