Wakilii

Uganda Communications Employees Union and Others v Uganda Telecom Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 189 of 2023)

Industrial Court · [2024] UGIC 21 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to vacate a consent temporary injunction arising from Labour Claim No. 26 of 2015 and High Court Civil Suit No. 79 of 2015
Decision
Application dismissed; main claim to proceed to expedited hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 6 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 6 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 6 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 to vacate a consent temporary injunction restraining the National Social Security Fund from refunding employer and employee contributions. The Court held that no sufficient grounds were established to vacate the consent order, as the applicants failed to demonstrate fraud, mistake, misapprehension, or any other vitiating factor. While the Court found that the 1st Respondent had admitted in a press release to owing UGX 16,311,992,461 in unremitted contributions, it declined to enter judgment on admission because questions of eligibility, entitlement, and excepted employment remained unresolved. The Court directed that the main claim be fast-tracked for expedited determination.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main claim to proceed to expedited hearing

Facts

The applicants were former employees of Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation who were transferred to Uganda Telecom Limited (UTL) by statute. They sought access to Social Security Fund contributions made to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) by UTL and its predecessor. On 31 March 2015, a consent temporary injunction was entered restraining NSSF from refunding contributions pending determination of the main claim. By order dated 10 July 2019, the injunction was varied to allow applicants access to 5% of their contributions. The applicants now sought to vacate the injunction entirely and access the remaining 10% employer contribution, arguing that NSSF did not object and that UTL had admitted owing UGX 16,311,992,461 in unremitted contributions in a press release dated 28 November 2022. UTL opposed, contending that some applicants were ineligible for being in excepted employment and that contributions were made in error.

Issues

  1. Whether the consent temporary injunction in LDMA 25 of 2015 should be vacated?
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent has admitted to the release of 10% of employer contribution made by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent and, if so, whether it should be retained by the 1st Respondent?
  3. Whether the Respondents should jointly and severally pay legal fees and costs so far incurred by the Applicants?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • The file in Labour Claim No. 26 of 2015 to be called immediately after this ruling to fix the same for a fast-tracked hearing and expedited final determination of the dispute.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Grounds for Setting Aside
A consent judgment or decree must be upheld unless it is vitiated by a reason that would enable a court to set aside an agreement, such as fraud, mistake, misapprehension, or contravention of court policy. A consent order cannot be vacated merely because one party no longer objects to its discharge.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Variation
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent a claim from being rendered nugatory pending trial. An application to vacate a temporary injunction that would change the status quo and potentially dispose of the main suit without trial will be refused where the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient cause.
Evidence — Admissions — Requirements for Judgment on Admission
While a court has discretion to enter judgment on admission under Order 13 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, such judgment should not be entered where objections are raised that go to the root of the matter, where points of law remain to be determined, or where the admission is not sufficiently clear to close the issue in question. Final judgments ought not to be passed on admissions unless they are clear, unambiguous and unconditional.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Interlocutory Applications
A claim for costs incurred thus far in litigation is premature where the main claim has not been finally determined. Costs follow the event, and the event means the result of the entire litigation, not intermediate proceedings. Costs of interlocutory applications are typically dealt with as costs in the cause, to be determined at the conclusion of the main suit.
Employment & Labour — Costs in Employment Disputes
In employment and labour disputes, the award of costs is the exception rather than the rule, given the need to balance the scales between an employee whose financial circumstances may have been affected by job loss and an employer whose financial standing is typically more positive. Labour courts will be reluctant to impose costs against a losing party except where that party is culpable for misconduct or has filed a frivolous matter.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (28)

  • Noor Mohammed Janmohamed v Kassmaali Virji (1953) 20 EACA 80
  • Betuco Uganda Ltd and Another v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd and 3 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2017)
  • Hirani v Kassam [1952] EACA 131
  • Ladak Abdulla Mohamed Hussein v Griffiths Insingoma Kakiiza and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004) [2008] UGSC 4
  • Ismail Sunderaji Hirani v Noorali Esmail Kassam (Court of Appeal No. 11 of 1952) [1952] 19 EACA
  • Mohamed Allibhai v W.E. Bukenya and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard Henry Kajuka (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 763 of 2013)
  • Robert Miggade v Musoke Tadeo and 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 109 of 2017)
  • Geoffrey Opio v Felix Obote and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application Nos. 0081 and 0082 of 2018)
  • Okello Johnson v Lalam Angella (High Court Civil Appeal No. 019 of 2019)
  • Seroma Limited v Erimu Company Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 214 of 2015)
  • Joyce Byehondozo v Attorney General and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 83 of 2020)
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1990)
  • Rashid Nyende and Others v Shoprite Checkers Ltd (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2023)
  • Spear Motors Ltd v Attorney General and Two Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 692 of 2007)
  • Attorney General v David Tineyfuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Agricultural Finance Corporation v Kenya National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 271 of 1996)
  • Nasra Ali Warsame v Osege Rajab (High Court Civil Suit No. 003 of 2013)
  • United Insurance Company Ltd v Waruinge and Others [2003] KLR 629
  • Nathan Wolukawu Wanda and 3 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 207 of 2012)
  • Joseph Kalule v GIZ (Labour Dispute Reference No. 109 of 2020)
  • The Managing Director NSSF and 197 Others v Uganda Telecom Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2016)
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v The Managing Director NSSF and 3 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 076 of 2016)
  • Dr. Muhammed Buwule Kasasa v The Administrator of the Estate of Sir Edward Mutesa II and 6 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 271 of 2023)
  • Space Marketing Uganda Ltd v Equifax Uganda Ltd & 4 Ors H.C.M.A 969 of 202
  • Matovu Luke and Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2003)
  • Bwambale and 1016 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 660 of 2002) [2012] UGHC 89

Cases citing this judgment (6)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda_Communications_Employees_Union_and_Others_v_Uganda_Telecom_Limited_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_189_of_2023)_[2024]_UGIC_21_(28_March_2024)
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.