Wakilii

The Cooper Motors Corporation (U) Limited v Bisaso (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 59 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of the Industrial Court's ruling in Labour Dispute Appeal No. 39 of 2019, which struck out the appeal on grounds that the Labour Officer's award was unsigned, undated, and unsealed
Decision
Labour Complaint No. 353 of 2018 referred to an independent Labour Officer for adjudication

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 reviewed its earlier ruling that struck out Labour Dispute Appeal No. 39 of 2019 on grounds that the Labour Officer's award was unsigned, undated, and unsealed. While the Court found no error apparent on the record warranting review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, it held that in the interest of substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, and given that the Industrial Court is the final appellate court with no further recourse, Labour Complaint No. 353 of 2018 should be referred to an independent Labour Officer for proper adjudication.

Outcome

Labour Complaint No. 353 of 2018 referred to an independent Labour Officer for adjudication

Facts

The Applicant filed Labour Dispute Appeal No. 39 of 2019 against a Labour Officer's decision. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Labour Officer's award forming part of the record of appeal was unsigned, undated, and unsealed. The Industrial Court upheld the objection and struck out the appeal on 29 January 2021. Subsequently, the Labour Officer wrote to the Registrar on 21 October 2020 forwarding what she described as a certified copy of the ruling delivered on 4 October 2019, and disowning the unsigned version. The Applicant then filed this application for review, arguing that the Court erred in not considering its submissions in response to the preliminary objection and that the Labour Officer's subsequent submission of a signed ruling should cure the defect. The Respondent opposed the review, arguing that the signed ruling sent after the appeal was filed could not cure the defect in the original record of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent out of time without leave of court should be struck out.
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the application sworn by an advocate without express authority from the Applicant Company is competent.
  3. Whether the application for review of the award in Labour Dispute Appeal No. 39 of 2019 should be allowed.

Orders

  • The ruling to set aside the Appeal in Labour Dispute Appeal No. 39 of 2019 is reviewed to include a reference of Labour Complaint No. 353 of 2018 to an independent Labour Officer for proper adjudication.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For a court to review its own decree or order, the applicant must prove discovery of new and important evidence not within their knowledge despite due diligence when the judgment was entered, an error apparent on the face of the record that is manifest and clear, or sufficient cause analogous to the first two grounds.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Time Limits for Filing Affidavits in Reply
Unlike pleadings which must adhere strictly to timelines, affidavits in reply contain evidence on oath and courts may exercise flexibility and discretion under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution where late filing does not prejudice the opposite party, particularly where the serving party did not file proper proof of service.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Authority of Advocate to Swear Affidavit on Behalf of Client
An advocate in a law firm retained by a party is, by virtue of the firm's instructions, authorized to act for and on behalf of that party, and may swear an affidavit in support of an application on the party's behalf without separate written authority, provided the advocate is not counsel in personal conduct of the matter.
Employment & Labour — Labour Appeals — Record of Appeal — Responsibility of Labour Officer
Under the Employment Act and Employment Regulations 2011, it is the responsibility of the Labour Officer who adjudicated the matter to prepare and submit the record of proceedings to the Industrial Court, not counsel for the parties, and the Labour Officer must furnish the Industrial Court with the complaint, parties, hearing proceedings, decision, and matter of appeal within 21 days.
Employment & Labour — Labour Appeals — Authenticity of Labour Officer's Award — Requirements
For a judgment or order to be considered authentic and binding, it must be signed by the judge or quasi-judicial officer who delivered it, sealed with the court seal or stamp of the Labour Officer, and bear the date on which it was handed down, and an unsigned, undated, and unsealed award is unauthentic and cannot form the basis of a valid appeal.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution
Where the Industrial Court is the final appellate court and an appeal is struck out due to an unauthentic Labour Officer's award through no fault of the appellant, the court may in the interest of substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution refer the matter to an independent Labour Officer for proper adjudication, even where strict grounds for review are not established.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (21)

  • Senyondwa Partrick and Another v Lucy Nakito (High Court Miscellaneous Application (Land Division) No. 1103 of 2018)
  • Lam-Lagolo v Muni University (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 007 of 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 85
  • Mutaba Barisa Kweterana Ltd v Bazirakye Yeremiya (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 158 of 2014)
  • Bishop Patrick Baligasiima v Kiiza Daniel (Miscellaneous Application No. 1459 of 2016)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Court of Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Fredrick James Jjunju and Another v Madhvani Group Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2015)
  • Amdan Khan v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 900 of 2013)
  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebwa [2008] 2 EA 86
  • Owori Media (U) Limited and Another v Eco Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1105 of 2014)
  • Makerere University v Mark Education Institute and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 378 of 1998)
  • Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Limited v Mwesigwa Godfrey Philip (Miscellaneous Application No. 477 of 2012)
  • Ham Enterprises Ltd and Others v Diamond Trust Bank Uganda Ltd and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 654 of 2020)
  • Al Shefi Investment Group LLC v Ahamed Darwich Dagher and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application (Land Division) No. 901 of 2017)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12
  • Attorney General and Others v Boniface Byanyima (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1789 of 2000)
  • MK Creditor Limited v Owara Patrick (High Court Miscellaneous Application (Commercial) No. 143 of 2015)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Jim Nganwa and Others v Gemtel Limited (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2019)
  • Deox Tibeingana v Vijay Reddy (Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2019)
  • Abdala Ramathan (Administrator of the late Noah Ramathan) v Agony Swaib (Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2016)
  • Seraki vs Katoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt 264) 156 at 188

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The_Cooper_Motors_Corporation_(U)_Limited_v_Bisaso_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_16_of_2021)_[2022]_UGIC_59_(4_March_2022)
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.