[2021] UGIC 66

[2021] UGIC 66

The court found that the respondent failed to submit any computation or contest the applicants' calculations despite being given multiple opportunities. In the absence of any challenge, the court accepted the applicants' computation as correct and endorsed the amounts claimed as owing to the applicants in accordance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] UGIC 66
Parties
Applicant: Waiswa Polycap; Applicant: Tembo Louis; Applicant: Mugabi Apollo; Applicant: Nzabamwita Bruno; Applicant: Lutwama Moses; Applicant: Okwera Jimmy; Applicant: Bamanyire Winfred; Applicant: Jarua Jane; Applicant: Maguya Milton; Applicant: Nakityo Teopista; Applicant: Balinda Jolly K.; Applicant: Twinomugisha Denis; Applicant: Rwekikiga Asiimwe; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Industrial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Namara, Panel Member, Nabirye, Panel Member, Matovu, Panel Member, Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Tumusiime-Mugisha, J
Legal Topics
Gratuity Entitlement, Emoluments Calculation, Interest on Awards, Failure to Contest Computation
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Gratuity Entitlement Emoluments Calculation Interest on Awards Failure to Contest Computation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waiswa Polycap

Applicant

Tembo Louis

Applicant

Mugabi Apollo

Applicant

Nzabamwita Bruno

Applicant

Lutwama Moses

Applicant

Okwera Jimmy

Applicant

Bamanyire Winfred

Applicant

Jarua Jane

Applicant

Maguya Milton

Applicant

Nakityo Teopista

Applicant

Balinda Jolly K.

Applicant

Twinomugisha Denis

Applicant

Rwekikiga Asiimwe

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' computation of emoluments should be endorsed and confirmed by the court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's failure to contest the computation entitles the applicants to the amounts claimed.
  3. 3 Whether interest on the balance payable is applicable as per the previous award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to submit any computation or contest the applicants' calculations despite being given multiple opportunities. In the absence of any challenge, the court accepted the applicants' computation as correct and endorsed the amounts claimed as owing to the applicants in accordance with the previous award. The court reaffirmed that interest at 21% from 2012 until payment in full applies to any balance payable, as previously ordered. The application was allowed in full, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicants' computation of emoluments is endorsed and confirmed as the correct computation owing to the applicants in Labour Dispute Ref. 054/2015.
  • Any balance payable shall attract interest at 21% from the year 2012 until payment in full.