[2019] UGIC 9
The court held that both grounds of appeal, which allege failure by the Labour Officer to properly evaluate evidence, constitute questions of law. Re-evaluation of evidence is an inherent obligation of the appellate court, and failure to do so is recognized as a matter of law. The preliminary objection was therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] UGIC 9
- Parties
- Appellant: Mubiru Martin; Respondent: The Red Cross Society
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Labour Dispute Appeal No. 28 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Dispute Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled
- Legal Topics
- Appeals on Questions of Law, Evaluation of Evidence, Preliminary Objection, Leave to Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mubiru Martin
Appellant
The Red Cross Society
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Dispute Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grounds of appeal, being of mixed law and fact, render the appeal incompetent under Section 94(2) of the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether failure to properly evaluate evidence by the Labour Officer constitutes a question of law for the purposes of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that both grounds of appeal, which allege failure by the Labour Officer to properly evaluate evidence, constitute questions of law. Re-evaluation of evidence is an inherent obligation of the appellate court, and failure to do so is recognized as a matter of law. The preliminary objection was therefore overruled, allowing the appeal to proceed on these grounds. The court relied on precedent from Baingana J. P. Vs Uganda and Onyango Robert Vs Security Group (U) (SGA), which establish that evaluation of evidence may be treated as a question of law for appellate purposes.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The appeal is allowed to proceed on the grounds stated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC O F UGANDA**
**THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA**
LABOUR DISPUTE APPEAL No. 28/2018
**(Arising from KCCA/CEN/198/2016)**
**BETWEEN**
**MUBIRU MARTIN .............................................................................. CLAIMANT**
**AND**
**THE RED CROSS SOCIETY................................................................. RESPONDENT**
**BEFORE**
1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye 2. Hon. Lady Justice Lillian Linda Tumusiime Mugisha
**PANELISTS**
1. Ms. Adrine Namara 2. Ms. Susan Nabirye 3. Mr. Micheal Matovu
**RULING**
When this appeal came up for mention on 26/3/2019 Mr. Mulula and Mr. Sebowa appeared for the respondent while Mr. Kinyera appeared for the applicant.
Mr. Mugalula raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the grounds of appeal were of mixed law and fact and that therefore the appeal ought to be struck off for failure to have complied with **Section 94(2) of the Employment Act.** He relied on **Karahukayo Vs ContinentalTobacco Ug, Ltd, L. D. Appeal 15/2015.**
In reply Mr. Kinyera submitted that since the preamble of the memorandum of appeal spoke of seeking leave to appeal, this Court should exonerate the claimant. He argued in the alternative that court should strike out reliance on points of fact and leave out reliance on points of law so that the appeal proceeds.
**Section 94(2) of the Employment Act** provides
**“An appeal under this section shall lie on a question of law, and with leave of the Industrial Court, on a question of fact forming part of th e decision of the Labour Officer.”**
The memorandum of Appeal in the instant appeal provided 2 grounds:
* 1. **The labour officer erred in law and in fact when he failed to fully evaluate the whole evidence thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion that the appellant did not continue to offer service to the respondent between the months of January and March 2016 leading to entitlement of the salary for that period.** 2. **The Labour officer erred in law and in fact when he failed to fully evaluate evidence presented thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion that the appellant should make a comprehensive handover report before claiming his provident funds.**
In the recent case of **Onyango Robert Vs Security Group (U) (SGA)** L. D. Appeal 040/2018 delivered on 21/3/2019 this court stated:
**”Ground I alleges improper evaluation of evidence on the record by the Labour Officer thus arriving at an erroneous decision. As already stated earlier , re-evaluation of evidence is an inherent obligation of the appellate court and in the case of Baingana J. P. Vs Uganda Cr Appeal 068/2010 (COA) failure to evaluate evidence was held to be a matter of law which the court on appeal could delve into.**
**The court of Appeal in the above decision singled out evaluation of evidence from among other grounds that related to a mixture of law and fact and entertained it striking out all the rest of the grounds. Since the instant appeal constitutes two grounds both of which are based on alleged failure by the Labour officer to properly evaluate evidence of the record, we hereby overrule the preliminary objection.**
No order as to costs is made.
**SIGNED BY:**
1. Hon. Chief Judge Ruhinda Asaph Ntengye ……………………………. 2. Hon. Lady Justice Lillian Linda Tumusiime Mugisha …………………………….
**PANELISTS:**
1. Ms. Adrine Namara ……………………………. 2. Ms. Susan Nabirye ……………………………. 3. Mr. Micheal Matovu …………………………….
Dated: 05/04/2019