Uganda Communications Employees Union and 2 Others v Uganda Telecom Limited and Another (Labour Claim 26 of 2015)
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 court held that claims for statutory contributions remitted by an employer to the National Social Security Fund are not caught by Section 164 of the Insolvency Act 2011 when the employer enters administration. The claimants are not creditors of the employer because the contributions, once remitted to the Fund, are held by the Fund for the benefit of employees and are not debts owed by the employer. No creditor-debtor relationship subsists between the claimants and the employer regarding remitted contributions. The proceedings may therefore continue without leave of court.
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the substantive issue of entitlement to remitted contributions
Facts
The Claimants were employees of Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation or Uganda Telecom Limited (UTL). They filed a claim in 2015 seeking declarations of entitlement to retirement benefits secured in the Uganda Communications Employees Contributory Pensions Scheme and the National Social Security Fund, to which UTL had made contributions. On 22 May 2017, UTL entered administration under the Insolvency Act 2011 and an administration deed was executed. Before trial commenced in May 2024, counsel for UTL raised a preliminary objection that the proceedings were barred by Section 164(2) of the Insolvency Act, which prohibits creditors from continuing legal proceedings against a company in administration without leave of court. The parties agreed to restrict the issue to entitlement to contributions already remitted to and held by the National Social Security Fund.
Issues
- Whether the proceedings should be stayed under Section 164(2) of the Insolvency Act 2011 given that the 1st Respondent is in administration.
- Whether the Claimants' claim for entitlement to contributions remitted to the 2nd Respondent is caught by the administration deed.
- Whether the Claimants are creditors of the 1st Respondent with a provable and quantifiable debt.
Orders
- The provisions of Section 164(2) of the Insolvency Act 2011 do not apply to the present case.
- The question for determination is whether the Claimants are entitled to the contributions remitted by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent.
- The trial of this question shall commence within the next fourteen days.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Insolvency Act 2011 s.164
- Insolvency Act 2011 s.164(2)
- National Social Security Fund Act Cap. 222 s.11
- National Social Security Fund Act Cap. 222 s.12
- National Social Security Fund Act Cap. 222 s.19
- Uganda Retirement Benefits Regulatory Act 2011 s.69(3)
- Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Amendment) Act 2021 s.8(2a)
- Uganda Communications Act Cap. 106 s.82(1)
- Companies Act Cap. 110
Cases cited (4)
- Uganda Telecom Ltd v Ondoma Samuel (H.C.M.A No. 0012 of 2018)
- Brash Holdings Pty Ltd v Katile Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 472
- BE Australia WD PTY Ltd v Sutton [2011] NSWCA 414
- Mohammed Kisu Aata v Uganda Telecom Ltd (LDC No. 275 of 2014)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.