Zenegalia v Sari Consulting Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 229 of 2019)

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.

Holding

The Industrial Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the employment dispute despite a contractual arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Rome under Italian law. The court ruled that Section 9 of the Labour Dispute (Arbitration & Settlement) Act excludes the application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to Industrial Court proceedings. Further, the contractual clause excluding Ugandan court jurisdiction was void under Section 27 of the Employment Act, which prohibits agreements that exclude provisions of the Act. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The claimant was employed by the respondent under two contracts dated 1 June 2017 for consultancy services on road and transportation projects. Both contracts contained clauses requiring any disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Rome under the rules of the Chamber of Commerce of Rome and in accordance with Italian law. The claimant alleged that the respondent failed to pay salary and other benefits, causing arrears and breach of contract. The claimant filed a labour dispute reference before the Industrial Court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the parties had agreed to mandatory arbitration in Rome under Italian law.

Issues

1. Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute given the contractual arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Rome under Italian law.
2. Whether the contractual clause excluding the jurisdiction of Ugandan courts was void under Section 27 of the Employment Act.
3. Whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act applied to proceedings before the Industrial Court.

Orders

• Preliminary objection overruled.
• The claim shall proceed on its merits.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Employment Act s.6
• Employment Act s.12
• Employment Act s.13
• Employment Act s.27
• Labour Dispute (Arbitration and Settlement) Act s.5
• Labour Dispute (Arbitration and Settlement) Act s.8
• Labour Dispute (Arbitration and Settlement) Act s.9
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.5
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.40
• Evidence Act s.91
• Judicature Act s.14(2)(b)(i)
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (7)

• Daniel Delestre & 6 Others v Hits Telecom (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 310 of 2013)
• Mujib Juma v Adam Musa & 8 Others (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2015)
• Portland International (PTY) Ltd v Sembule Steel Mills Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 141 of 2014)
• Prof. Egbert De Smet v Juliet Nakassaga (Civil Suit No. 387 of 2011)
• CMA Cam Uganda Ltd v M/s Sekatawa International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2013)
• Huadar Guangdong Chinese Co. Ltd v Dance Logistics Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2012)
• Justice Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye & Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2016)

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.

• Apio Gloria v General Manager, Ngetta Tropical Holdings Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No.12 of 2022)

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