Wakilii

Uganda Broad casting cooperation v Kamukama (Misc. Application No. 638 of 2014)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 92 · 2015 Matter Referred to Labour Officer AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out claim for lack of jurisdiction
Decision
Matter referred to Kampala District Labour Officer for redress

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 High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution cannot be ousted by an Act of Parliament. Section 93 of the Employment Act 2006, which confers jurisdiction on Labour Officers to hear employment disputes, does not remove the High Court's jurisdiction. However, in light of current court policy and Parliament's intention in establishing the Labour Officer system and Industrial Court, the matter was referred to the Kampala District Labour Officer for appropriate handling.

Outcome

Matter referred to Kampala District Labour Officer for redress

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant Uganda Broadcasting Corporation in Civil Suit 268 of 2012 alleging victimization, discrimination, illegal reduction in rank without just cause or hearing, and unlawful termination. UBC filed a preliminary objection seeking to strike out the claim on the ground that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because Section 93 of the Employment Act 2006 vests exclusive jurisdiction in Labour Officers to hear employment disputes, with appeals lying to the Industrial Court. The application was filed on 18 December 2014, issued on 20 January 2015, but only served on the respondent on 9 or 16 February 2015, beyond the fifteen-day service requirement under Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was served out of time and that Article 139(1) of the Constitution confers unlimited original jurisdiction on the High Court which cannot be limited by statute.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was served out of time and should be struck out for non-compliance with Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's employment grievances in Civil Suit 268 of 2012.
  3. Whether Section 93 of the Employment Act 2006 ousts the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139(1) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The respondent's claim be referred to the Kampala District Labour Officer for redress.
  • Each party shall meet its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

High Court Jurisdiction — Constitutional Protection — Amendment by Statute
An Act of Parliament cannot oust the jurisdiction of the High Court except by an amendment of the Constitution.
Jurisdiction — Labour Officer and Industrial Court — Concurrent Jurisdiction with High Court
Section 93 of the Employment Act 2006, which provides that complaints alleging infringement of rights under the Act shall be made to a Labour Officer, does not oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by Article 139(1) of the Constitution.
Service Out of Time — No Prejudice — Interests of Justice
Where an interlocutory application is served beyond the fifteen-day period prescribed by Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, but the respondent is not prejudiced and has filed a reply, the court may in the interests of justice decide the application on its merits rather than strike it out for non-compliance.
Alternative Forum — Referral to Specialist Tribunal — Court Policy
Although the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction, current court policy favours referring employment disputes to Labour Officers and the Industrial Court where those institutions are operational and Parliament intended them to adjudicate such matters, in order to promote access to justice, proximity to the public, and avoid unnecessary expense.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Hussein Bada Vs Iganga District Land Board
  • 201 Employees of G4S Security (U) Ltd v G4S (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2010)
  • Rabo Enterprises (U) Ltd and Elgon Hardware Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Broad casting cooperation v Kamukama (Misc. Application No. 638 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCD 92 (24 August 2015)
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.