Yusuf Baliruno v Central Broadcasting Services (Labour Dispute Reference No. 92 of 2020)
Observed later treatment
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 the claimant was not an employee of the respondent broadcasting company but rather a freelance journalist. Applying the multiple test for employment status, the court found no sufficient framework of control, no agreed salary, no evidence of integration into the employer's organisation, and circumstances consistent with freelance work including payment per broadcast, absence of PAYE/NSSF contributions, and self-regulation of work. The claim for unfair termination and terminal benefits was dismissed.
Outcome
Claim dismissed — claimant found to be a freelance journalist, not an employee
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent radio station from 2001 to 2020 as a sports presenter and reporter, covering various programmes including traffic updates and football tournaments. He claimed he was promised a monthly salary of UGX 300,000 rising to UGX 500,000 plus allowances, but consistently received only UGX 100,000 per month for facilitation and UGX 30,000 per field assignment. He was issued an identity card as a sports reporter and contributed to a staff SACCO. After writing unanswered letters to the Katikiro of Buganda in 2019 complaining of non-payment, he was informed in January 2020 that he was no longer an employee. The respondent contended he was an intern who became a freelance journalist, paid per task, never formally absorbed into employment, and therefore not entitled to employee benefits or termination procedures.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent Company?
- Whether the Claimant was dismissed from employment?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The Claimant was not an employee of the Respondent.
- The claim dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (22)
- Kamukama v Summit Project Limited (Industrial Court No. 54 of 2023)
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
- Wanderemah and 50 Others v The Microfinance Finance Support Centre Ltd (High Court Civil Division No. 99 of 2015)
- Kyamukama v Makerere University Business School (Industrial Court No. 36 of 2020)
- Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1968] 3 All ER 732
- Bank Voor Handel en Scheepvaart Nv v Slatford [1952] 2 All ER 956
- Obong Naaman Walter v Vince Tours and Travel Limited (Industrial Court No. 44 of 2025)
- Uber BV & Ors v Aslam & Ors [2021] UKSC 5
- Spring v Datateam Publishing Ltd [1998] UKEAT 1287
- Kyobutungi v NIC General Insurance Company Limited (Industrial Court No. 48 of 2024)
- Ontario v Saqaz Industries Canada Inc [2001] 2 SCR 938; 2001 SCC 59
- Tayebwa v China Railways No. 10 Engineering Group Company Limited (Industrial Court No. 18 of 2024)
- Olama and 3 Others v St. Joseph Vocational Training School Ediofe (Industrial Court No. 41 of 2025)
- Okullu and Another v Ocepa (Industrial Court No. 70 of 2023)
- The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd and Another v Kirya (Court of Appeal No. 393 of 2022)
- Kiirya Hillary v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Ltd & Anor (High Court No. 159 of 2009)
- Windle v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 459
- Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 318
- South African Broadcasting Corporation v Mckenzie [1998] ZALAC 13
- Ibrahim Ulalo v Nation Media Group [2024] KEELRC 574 (KLR)
- Edward Ngarega Gacheru v Nation Media Group Limited [2019] eKLR
- David May v Busitema Mining CIE Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 19 of 2019)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.