Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Kisembo (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 155 of 2023)

Industrial Court · [2025] UGIC 26 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal on questions of fact from Labour Officer's award
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 dismissed an application for leave to appeal on questions of fact from a Labour Officer's award. The Court held that an applicant seeking leave under section 93(2) of the Employment Act must specify which questions of fact forming part of the Labour Officer's decision they seek to challenge. The Applicant failed to identify specific factual errors or propose distinct questions of fact, instead seeking general re-evaluation of evidence. The application was dismissed with costs as lacking merit and intended to delay justice.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd employed Kisembo Deo from 1 November 2011 until December 2020. Following a performance appraisal on 20 December 2020, Kisembo was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan which he refused to sign. He was subsequently subjected to disciplinary proceedings which he declined to attend, leading to his dismissal. Kisembo filed Labour Complaint No. MGLSD/LC/323/2021 for unlawful dismissal. On 1 September 2023, the Labour Officer found in favour of Kisembo and awarded him UGX 83,505,407 as compensation, severance allowance, and repatriation pay. Stanbic Bank, dissatisfied with the Labour Officer's findings on matters of fact, filed this application seeking leave to appeal those factual findings under section 93(2) of the Employment Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal on questions of fact under section 93(2) of the Employment Act.
  2. Whether the Applicant identified specific questions of fact forming part of the Labour Officer's decision that merit serious judicial consideration.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs granted to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Appeals from Labour Officer — Leave to Appeal on Questions of Fact — Requirements under Employment Act s.93(2)
An applicant seeking leave to appeal on grounds of fact or mixed law and fact under section 93(2) of the Employment Act must satisfy the court that the question or questions of fact upon which they intend to appeal formed part of the decision of the Labour Officer and must specify which questions of fact they seek to challenge.
Employment & Labour — Appeals from Labour Officer — Autonomy of Labour Officer as Finder of Fact
Section 93(2) of the Employment Act preserves the autonomy of the Labour Officer as an arbitrator or adjudicator and as a finder of fact, making it mandatory for a party seeking leave to appeal based on matters of fact or mixed law and fact to first seek leave of court, as it is the role of the trial forum to determine facts and for the appellate court to determine points of law.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Requirement for Specificity
An appeal consists of an error of law or fact in the judgment which the appellant believes occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The error or misdirection must be concise and distinct, and objections relevant to the appeal. Appeals are granted where there are grounds that merit serious judicial consideration.
Civil Procedure — Applications for Leave to Appeal — Insufficient Grounds — General Request for Re-evaluation of Evidence
Where an applicant seeks leave to appeal but fails to specify the error of fact they wish the appellate court to rectify and proposes no distinct question of fact to challenge, instead requesting only that the court re-evaluate the evidence on the record, the application lacks merit and will be dismissed.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank & Attorney General [1971] EA 17
  • Ekisa George & Ors v Bank of Africa & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2017)
  • Bureau Veritas Uganda Limited v Davlin Kamugisha (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 54 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic_Bank_Uganda_Limited_v_Kisembo_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_155_of_2023)_[2025]_UGIC_26_(5_March_2025)
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.