Opio v Teso Cooperative (Labour Dispute Reference 1 of 2021)
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 cooperative society where the employment contract and the Co-operative Societies Act require such disputes to be referred to arbitration. Section 6 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act mandates that where arbitration arrangements exist, the Labour Officer must not refer the matter to the Industrial Court but must ensure parties follow the agreed arbitration procedure. The matter was dismissed and referred for arbitration.
Outcome
Matter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and referred for arbitration under Section 73 of the Co-operative Societies Act
Facts
The Respondent, Teso Co-operative, is a cooperative union registered under the Co-operative Societies Act Cap 112. It employed the Claimant as Production and Marketing Officer from 18 August 2019 to 31 July 2022 under a fixed-term contract. The Claimant was terminated before the expiry of his contract and brought a claim for unlawful termination. The matter was filed before the Labour Officer who referred it to the Industrial Court. At the pre-session hearing on 16 May 2024, the Respondent indicated its intention to raise a preliminary objection. The Respondent argued that under Section 73 of the Co-operative Societies Act and Clause 55 of its bye-laws, any dispute involving an officer (which includes employees) must be referred to arbitration. The Respondent had informed the Labour Officer from the outset that the matter should be handled through arbitration, but the Labour Officer proceeded to refer it to the Industrial Court.
Issues
- Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to determine a claim which should have been resolved by arbitration under Section 73 of the Co-operative Societies Act and Clause 55 of 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 Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act.
- 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
Legislation cited (6)
- Co-operative Societies Act Cap 112 s.73
- Co-operative Societies Act Cap 112 s.2
- Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act s.6
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.5(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 3
- Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
Cases cited (4)
- Dr. Kagoro Kaijamurubi v Jeremy John Graham (Civil Suit No. 48 of 2021)
- Anywar Charles & 4 others v Gulu University (Civil Suit No. 16 of 2022)
- Ozzu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru Mika (Civil Revision No. 002 of 2016)
- Giorgio Zenegalia v Sari Consulting Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 229 of 2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.