Wakilii

The AIDS Support Organisation Uganda Limited v Susan Sirama (Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2024)

Industrial Court · [2026] UGIC 9 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against a Labour Officer's award on questions of fact and mixed law and fact
Decision
Application for leave to appeal granted with directions for filing memorandum of appeal within 7 days; costs of severed affidavit paragraphs awarded 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 held that paragraphs 5, 6, 8, and 10 of the Applicant's supporting affidavit were argumentative and prolix, containing legal submissions rather than facts within the deponent's personal knowledge, in violation of Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The offending paragraphs were severed from the affidavit, and the Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of these severed portions. On the substantive application, the Court granted leave to appeal the Labour Officer's decision, finding that the intended grounds of appeal raised questions of fact and mixed law and fact that formed part of the Labour Officer's decision and merited a grant of leave. The Applicant was directed to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 7 days.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal granted with directions for filing memorandum of appeal within 7 days; costs of severed affidavit paragraphs awarded to the Respondent

Facts

The Respondent, Susan Sirama, worked for the Applicant as a volunteer from 1 February 2004 and later as Programme Administrator under a three-year fixed-term contract from 1 January 2018. The Applicant terminated the Respondent by letter dated 17 April 2018, imposing a retrospective six-month contract ending 30 April 2018. In Labour Dispute No. MGLSD/LC/866/2022, the Labour Officer found the termination unlawful both procedurally and substantively, holding that the Applicant failed to conduct a mandatory hearing and failed to prove alleged incompetence. The Labour Officer rejected the time-bar defence under Section 71(2) of the Employment Act and awarded the Respondent approximately UGX 139,000,000 in various heads of compensation including severance, notice pay, leave, repatriation, gratuity, and other entitlements. Aggrieved by this decision, the Applicant sought leave to appeal on questions of fact and mixed law and fact.

Issues

  1. Whether paragraphs 5, 6, 8, and 10 of the supporting affidavit are argumentative and should be struck out under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to appeal the Labour Officer's decision on questions of fact and mixed law and fact under Section 94 of the Employment Act 2006.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 5, 6, 8, and 10 of Ms. Tamale's supporting affidavit severed.
  • Leave granted to the Applicant to appeal the decision of Mr. Apollo Onzoma (ACIR) in MGLSD/LC/866/2022 on questions of fact.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 7 days from the date of ruling.
  • The Applicant shall meet the costs of severing paragraphs 5, 6, 8, and 10 of the supporting affidavit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Argumentative Affidavits
An affidavit is meant to adduce evidence and should contain only facts within the deponent's personal knowledge, not legal arguments or submissions reserved for counsel. Under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his or her own knowledge to prove and shall not unnecessarily set forth matters of hearsay or argumentative matters. Paragraphs containing submissions on law and evaluation of evidence rather than facts are argumentative and prolix, contrary to the rules on affidavit evidence.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Treatment of Offending Paragraphs — Severance
Where an affidavit contains argumentative or prolix paragraphs in violation of Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has power to sever the offending paragraphs rather than strike out the entire affidavit. This approach accords with the constitutional precept under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities. Only those portions of an affidavit conforming to the rules on affidavit evidence should be considered, while offending portions may be disregarded.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Argumentative Affidavits
Under Order 19 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the costs of every affidavit which shall unnecessarily set forth matters of hearsay or argumentative matter shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be paid by the party filing the affidavit. Where argumentative paragraphs are severed from an affidavit, the party filing the affidavit shall bear the costs of the severed portions.
Employment & Labour — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Questions of Fact and Mixed Law and Fact
Under Section 94 of the Employment Act 2006, an intending appellant seeking leave to appeal on questions of fact or mixed law and fact must satisfy the court that the questions upon which they intend to anchor their appeal formed part of the decision of the Labour Officer and that they have reason for seeking to make arguments on questions of fact. Where the Labour Officer's awards are based on findings and analysis of facts and evaluation of evidence, they constitute matters of mixed law and fact for which leave to appeal is required.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The AIDS Support Organisation Uganda Limited v Susan Sirama (Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2024) [2026] UGIC 9 (20 February 2026)
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.