Ridar Hotel Limited v Bitira Khalid Beat (Labour Dispute Appeal 11 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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 dismissed the appeal as incompetent for being filed out of time. The Court held that the thirty-day period prescribed by Regulation 45(1) of the Employment Regulations 2011 for filing a notice of appeal is computed by excluding only the trigger date and the last day if it falls on a Sunday or public holiday. Sundays and public holidays within the thirty-day period are not excluded because the period exceeds six days. The appeal was filed five days late.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetent. Labour Officer's award in favour of Respondent stands.

Facts

The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a night auditor from 12 June 2019 until 15 February 2021 when he was terminated. He claimed he was not given an opportunity to be heard and was denied salary arrears from March 2020 to February 2021. The Appellant contended that the Respondent was invited to a disciplinary committee, found fraudulent based on an audit report, confessed, and was dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Industrial Relations found no evidence that the Respondent was given adequate time to prepare representations before the disciplinary meeting or that he received invitations detailing the accusations and his rights. The Labour Officer found the termination unfair and awarded the Respondent UGX 1,657,948. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 22 June 2022, thirty-six days after the Labour Officer's decision of 17 May 2022.

Issues

1. Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the statutory time limit of thirty days prescribed by Regulation 45(1) of the Employment Regulations 2011.
2. Whether Sundays and public holidays should be excluded from the computation of the thirty-day period for filing a notice of appeal.
3. Whether the Labour Officer erred in finding that the Respondent was not given an opportunity to prepare for the disciplinary hearing.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed as incompetent for being filed out of time.
• No order as to costs.
• Respondent entitled to disbursements under a certificate from the Registrar.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Employment Act 2006 s.66
• Employment Act 2006 s.78(2)
• Employment Act 2006 s.94(1)
• Employment Regulations 2011 reg.45
• Employment Regulations 2011 reg.45(1)
• Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.29
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 r.3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 r.4
• Interpretation Act Cap.3 s.34
• Interpretation Act Cap.3 s.34(1)
• Interpretation Act Cap.3 s.34(1)(d)

Cases cited (15)

• Father Nanensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tiberaga [2004] KALR 236
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Stephen Mukooba v Opportunity Bank Ltd (Labour Dispute Claim No. 51 of 2015)
• Tools and Fasteners Ltd v Khimani Ravji Jadva (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 326 of 2014)
• Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v J Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
• Loi Kageni Kiryapawo v Gole Nicholas Davis (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 15 of 2007)
• Hajj Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Sseggane [1992-1993] HCB 218
• Geofrey Nagumya T/A Nagumya & Co Advocates v. Security Plus Uganda Ltd
• Uganda Bureau of Standards v Dan Wagidoso (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 47 of 2021)
• Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2021)
• China Railway No. 3 Engineering Group Co Ltd v Segken Services Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 161 of 2020)
• AutoTune Engineering Limited v Barozi and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2022)
• Bugisu Cooperative Union Limited v Sabakaki (Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2022)
• Kampala Capital City Authority v Buwunga (Miscellaneous Application No. 95 of 2023)
• Aporo Goldie v Mercy Corps Uganda (Labour Dispute Reference No. 109 of 2020)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kalimundo Festo v Hagenimana Eric (Civil Appeal 12 of 2024)

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