Wakilii

Opio John Emmanuel v Teso Co-operative (Labour Dispute Reference No. 01 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2024] UGIC 83 · 2024 Application Dismissed — Matter Referred to Arbitration AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from claim for unlawful termination, dismissed on preliminary objection for lack of jurisdiction
Decision
Matter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and referred for arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Act

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 lacks jurisdiction to hear an employment dispute involving an employee of a registered co-operative society where the Co-operative Societies Act s.73, the society's bye-laws, and the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act s.6 mandate referral to arbitration. The matter was dismissed as improperly and prematurely before the court and referred for arbitration.

Outcome

Matter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and referred for arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Act

Facts

The claimant was employed by Teso Co-operative, a registered co-operative union, as Production and Marketing Officer from 18 August 2019 to 31 July 2022. He was terminated before the expiry of his contract and brought a claim for unlawful termination before the Labour Officer, who referred the matter to the Industrial Court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the dispute should have been referred to arbitration under section 73 of the Co-operative Societies Act and clause 55 of the respondent's bye-laws. The respondent had informed the Labour Officer from the outset that the matter was before the wrong forum, but the Labour Officer proceeded to refer it to the Industrial Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to determine a claim which should have been resolved by arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Act and the respondent's bye-laws.

Orders

  • The matter is referred for arbitration as provided for under section 73 of the Co-operative Societies Act, clause 55 of the Respondent's bye-laws and Section 6 of the LADASA.
  • Labour Dispute Reference No. 01 of 2021 is dismissed for being improperly and premature before this court.
  • No order as to costs is made.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Jurisdiction — Arbitration Agreements in Employment Contracts — Co-operative Societies
Where an employee of a registered co-operative society brings a labour dispute and the Co-operative Societies Act s.73 mandates referral of disputes between the society and its officers (including employees) to arbitration, the Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter until arbitration has been exhausted.
Arbitration & ADR — Mandatory Arbitration — Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act s.6
Where there are arrangements for settlement by conciliation or arbitration in a trade or industry, the Labour Officer shall not refer the matter to the Industrial Court but shall ensure the parties follow the procedure for settling the dispute laid out in the conciliation or arbitration agreement.
Statutory Interpretation — Definition of 'Officer' — Co-operative Societies Act
Under the Co-operative Societies Act s.2, 'officer' is defined to include a chairperson, secretary, treasurer, member of a committee, employee, or other person empowered under regulations or bye-laws to give directions regarding the business of a registered society. An employee of a co-operative society therefore falls within the definition of 'officer' for purposes of mandatory arbitration under s.73.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Jurisdiction — Substance over Form
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution enjoins courts in the interest of justice to resolve substance rather than form. Where a preliminary objection raises a fundamental question of jurisdiction, the court must pronounce itself on the merits of the objection notwithstanding procedural irregularities in raising it.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dr. Kagoro Kaijamurubi v Jeremy John Graham (Civil Suit No. 48 of 2021)
  • Anywar Charles & 4 Others v Gulu University (HCCS No. 16 of 2022)
  • Ozzu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru Milka (Civil Revision No. 002 of 2016)
  • Giorgio Zenegalia v Sari Consulting Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 229 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Opio_John_Emmanuel_v_Teso_Co-operative_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_No._01_of_2021)_[2024]_UGIC_83_(25_June_2024)
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.