Olama and 3 Others v St. Joseph Vocational Training School Ediofe (Labour Dispute Reference No. 05 of 2024) [2025] UGIC 41 (16 June 2025)

Full Case Text

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA IN GULU LABOUR DISPUTE REFERENCE N0.05 OF 2024**

*(Arising from Labour Dispute No. LAB/CB/69 of2022)*

# **1.0LAMANDUA SAVERINO**

#### **2. ORIJABO BENARD**

**CLAIMANTS 3. ADRIKO DENIS :::::::::::**

**4. DEBO MOSES**

# **VERSUS**

# **ST. JOSEPH VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL EDIOFE RESPONDENT**

**BEFORE:** The Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana

**THE PANELISTS:** Hon. Adrine Namara, Hon. Emmanuel Bigirimana & Hon. Can Amos Lapenga.

#### *Representation:*

*1. Mr. Joseph Etoma of the LegalAid Project of the Uganda Law Society for the Claimants*

*2. The Respondent is unrepresented.*

#### *Case summary*

*Employment Law- claim for unpaid wages- powers of Labour Officer to inspect, investigate and assess unpaid wages-*

*This dispute concerns a salary arrears dispute involving four claimants and their former employer. The claimants, previously employed under one-year contracts, sought unpaid wages, National Social Security Fund contributions, workers' compensation, and general damages from the respondent. Due to the respondent's failure to appear or oppose the claim, the court proceeded ex parte, deeming the claimants' evidence credible. The judgment affirms the claimants' right to salary arrears based on their contracts and a Labour Officer's assessment, further awarding them general damages for the deprivation of their earnings. The Claimants were awarded the costs of the claim.*

*Heard: Determined: 5th and 12th June 2025 16th June 2025*

## **AWARD**

### **Introduction**

**[1]** The First and Second Claimants were appointed heads of department at the Respondent for a one-year contract effective from the 2nd of January 2019 to the 31st of December 2019. Their salary was UGX 150,000/= per month. The 3rd and 4th Claimants were appointed as Instructors for the same term, receiving a monthly salary of UGX 140,000/= each. On the 16th of February 2022, the Claimants lodged a complaint with the District Labour Officer (DLO), Arua District, Mr. Richard Adrabo Inziku. The DLO issued a notice to the Respondent, requiring it to pay the Claimants UGX 2,620,000/= in salary arrears over a three- to fivemonth period. According to the DLO, the Respondent's Chairman promised to attend to the

![](_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg)

issue. On the 29lh of September 2023, Mr. Jimmy Droma, Labour Officer, Arua District, referred the matter to this Court. Z2

- **[2]** By their memorandum of claim, the Claimants sought UGX 2,620,000/= in salary arrears, payment of National Social Security Fund Contributions, general damages of UGX 5,000,000/= each, payment of workers' compensation and costs of the claim. - **[3]** The claim was unopposed.

# *Procedural History*

- [4] The matter was first called before us on the 30th of April 2024 and was fixed for scheduling on the 29th of August 2024. It was then called on the 8th of May 2025, we directed Mr. Etoma, appearing for the Claimants, to serve the Respondent afresh and furnish Court with proof of service. On the 28th of May 2025, upon perusal of the affidavit of service sworn by Mr. Kenneth Odoo on the 23rd of May 2025 to which a hearing notice upon which the Respondents stamp was affixed was attached, we granted the Claimant leave to proceed exparte under Order 9 Rule 20 (1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules S.l. 71-1(CPR). - [5] On the 5lh of June 2025, the following issues were framed for determination - (i) Whether the Claimant is entitled to salary arrears? and - (ii) What remedies are available to the parties? - **[6]** The documents in the Claimant's trial bundle, dated 30th May 2025, were admitted into evidence and marked CEX1 to CEX6. Each of the Claimants' witness statements was adopted as their respective testimonies before this Court. - **[7]** The 1st Claimant testified that his starting salary was UGX 200,000/= when he was appointed on 2nd January 2019 and that he was seeking five months' salary arrears for January, September, October,. November and December 2019. He also asked for UGX 1,000,000/ = in NSSF contributions and general damages for suffering. The 2nd Claimant's witness statement mirrored the 1st Claimant's witness statement except for stating his age as 39 at the time of making his witness statement and for appending his signature. - [8] The 3rd Claimant testified that his starting salary was UGX 140,000/= when he was appointed on 2nd January 2019 and that he was seeking five months' salary arrears for January, September, October, November and December 2019. He asked for UGX 700,000/= in NSSF contributions and general damages for suffering. The 2nd Claimant's witness statement mirrored the 1st Claimant's witness statement except that they bore different signatures.

# *Claimant's submissions*

**[9]** In his written submissions, Mr. Etoma cited Section 2 of the Employment Act Cap. 226(EA) for a definition of a contract of service, Section 39 EA on the duty to provide work and Section 40 EA, which includes the duty to pay wages for work done. Counsel submitted that

LDR05/2024 OLAMA NDUA SAVER1NO &3 ORSVST. JOSEPH VOCATIONALTRAINING SCHOOL EDlOFEAwari AnlWyWalwire Muj 6 June 2025

the Respondent had failed to discharge the duty placed upon it to pay its employees and invited this Court to award the Claimants UGX 2,400,000/= in salary arrears.

# *Decision ofthe Court*

**[10]** The Respondent did not file a memorandum in reply or attend Court. Therefore, the Claimants' evidence was unchallenged and in such circumstances, it is deemed admitted as inherently credible and probably true. In *Brown v Oji/o* 1 Ssekaana J.(as *he then was)* observed that in such cases, the Court must evaluate the evidence to give it quality and value.

#### *Issue One: Salary Arrears.*

- **[11]** In *James Wabwire v Pachedo Foundation2* this Court observed that the right to wages is a fundamental right of every worker, constitutionally enshrined under Article 40 of the 1995 Constitution and provided for under Section 40(1 )EA. We cited the International Labour Organisation Convention, **Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95)** by which wages were defined as a means remuneration or earnings, however designated or calculated, capable of being expressed in terms of money and fixed by mutual agreement or by national laws or regulations, which are payable in virtue of a written or unwritten contract of employment by an employer to an employed person for work done or to be done or for services rendered or to be rendered. - [12] In the case of Rivera *vAdaan Property Solutions Limited3,* this Court required a claim for salary to be proven in a manner similar to that of special damages **in** an ordinary civil suit. *(See also Rwambale v Garfield Institute of Technology [2024] UGIC 24)* A contract, payslips or bank statements are proof of salary. We also observed that under Section 50(1 )EA *(now Section 49(1)EA following the revision of the Laws of Uganda),* every employee is entitled to an itemized pay statement with each payment. The pay statement is required to be itemised, in writing, in a language the employee understands, setting out the deductions and purposes of such deductions, and the net wages payable for the pay period. This provision means that an employee has the right to all information relating to their salaries. Under Section 49(3) EA, a Labour Officer has the power to issue a pay statement or amend a pay statement. Under subsection (5), such a written statement takes the place of the employer's pay statement. This means that as a point of first contact or intervention or first instance, when a complaint of unpaid salary is made to a Labour Officer, the Labour Officer can investigate the complaint under Section 12(1 )EA while invoking the power to inspect a workplace under Section 10(1 )(a) EA and require the production of any books including a payroll. The purposes of these powers are to ensure compliance with the labour laws in force and aid in dispute resolution. - **[13]** The Claimants' contracts of employment were admitted in evidence and marked CEX1 to CEX4. The 1st and 2nd Claimants testified that their respective starting salaries were UGX

b June 2025 LDR05/2024 OLAMANDUASAVERINO &3 ORS V ST. JOSEPHVOCATIONALTRAINING SCHOOL EDlOFEAwarcL *Anlhcfo*Wabwire Mt

H20231 UGHCCD 173

2 LDR 09/2024 Industrial Court 12.06.2025

3 (20241 UGIC 9

![](_page_3_Picture_0.jpeg)

200,000/= each. CEX1 and CEX2 both contained the sum of UGX 200,000/= crossed and the sum of UGX 150,000/= inscribed in pen ink as the starting gross salary. The salary scale was indicated as UGX 2.400,000/ $=$ . For the 3rd and 4th Claimants, their contracts of employment specified a salary scale of UGX 1.680,000/= and a starting gross monthly salary of UGX 140.000/=. Each of them sought five months' salary arrears for January, September, October, November and December 2019. Therefore, by Section 2EA, we are satisfied that the Claimants were employees of the Respondent. They have also shown that they were entitled to a salary.

$[14]$ The key question is whether they have satisfied us regarding the quantum of their salary arrears. For this Section 49(5)EA provides some useful guidance as follows:

> "Any written statement issued by a Labour Officer in place or in amendment of the employee's pay statement shall, for all purposes, be regarded as if it had been duly issued by the employer in accordance with subsection (1)."

In the present case, for the period from January to December 2019, the Respondent did not issue the Claimants with any pay statements in compliance with Section 49(1) EA. And in particular, the months of February to August 2019, which the Claimant did not claim as unpaid, there are no accompanying pay statements. On the 16th of August 2022, the DLO issued a statement by which he assessed the 1st and 2nd Claimant's salary as UGX 150,000/= per month and each owed UGX 750,000/=, the 4th Claimant at UGX 140,000/= per month and owed UGX 700,000/= and the 3rd Claimant at UGX 140,000/= per month and owed UGX $420.000/=$ .

$[15]$ On the evidence before us and reading from Section 49(5) EA, we accept the DLO's written statement of the Claimant's respective salaries and arrears in place of the itemised pay statement that the Respondent was statutorily required to issue under Section 49(1)EA. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the Claimants have proven their entitlement to wages, and we award them UGX 2,620,000/= as unpaid salary arrears. Issue one is answered in the affirmative.

**Issue Two: Remedies**

**General Damages**

- Mr. Etoma cited Article 126(2)(c) of the 1995 Constitution in support of the proposition for $[16]$ adequate compensation and *Uganda Post Limited v Mukadisi*,4 for the principal considerations for an award of general damages. Counsel asked for UGX 2,000,000/= each in general damages. - $[17]$ General damages are those that the Court presume to be a direct natural or probable consequence of the wrong complained of5. In *Mukadisi*, the Supreme Court held that an employee would be entitled to a claim for general damages as an independent award for unlawful termination. The relevant considerations in determining general damages are that

LDRos/2024 OLAMA NDUA SAVERINO & 3 ORS V ST. JOSEPH VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL EDIOFE Award Antho hv Wabwire Mus "]une 2025

4 [2023] UGSC 58. We cited this decision in Sserunjogi v Safeboda (Labour Dispute Reference 47 of 2022) [2024] UGIC 36 (16 August 2024) 5 Per Lord McNaughten in Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] A. C 515

general damages are not tied to specific financial losses. The court assesses general " \$ damages and is not restricted to the salary or pecuniary benefits stipulated in the employment contract. These damages include compensation for emotional distress, mental anguish, damage to reputation, and any other non-monetary harm suffered as a result of the dismissal.

- [18] In *Wabwire, we* observed that the Claimant has been deprived of his salary for about four years, and we also cited *Alaba v Bank of Uganda6,* where we held that, having been deprived of her accrued benefits for well over nineteen years, the Claimant would be entitled to general damages. In this case, the Claimants have been deprived of their salaries, and we are inclined to award them general damages. In *Wabwire,* since the Claimant was earning UGX 3,000,000/= per month, we considered the sum of UGX 6,000,000/= to be sufficient as general damages. That was about two months' salary. In the present case, we award the Claimants the following sums in general damages: - The 1st and 2nd Claimants UGX 450,000/= each (i) - The 3rd and 4th Claimants UGX 350,000/= each (ii) - [19] We are fortified in taking this approach by the decision of the Court of Appeal in *Standard Chartered Bank v Makoko7* which holds that general damages should not exceed the employee's fixed income or double their earnings. At UGX 2,000,000/= each as prayed for by Mr. Etoma, such an award of general damages would more than double the respective claims for unpaid wages.

*Costs*

- [20] Our dicta on costs is that in employment disputes, the exception is in cases where the losing party has been found to have committed misconduct.8 In the present case, we are persuaded to award the Claimants' costs. The Respondent did not pay salary arrears. In *Makoko,* the Court of Appeal maintained the Respondent's costs at the Industrial Court because she was justified in filing her action. For these reasons, and following our dicta in *Wabwire,* building on *Kiggundu Yunus v Felister (U) Ltd9* the Claimants are justified in filing this action and shall have costs of the claim. - [21] In the final analysis, the claim succeeds in the following terms: - (i) It is hereby declared that the Claimants are entitled to salary arrears of UGX 2,620,000/= to be paid to them by the Respondent as follows; - (a) The 1st and 2nd Claimants are entitled to UGX 750,000/= each, - (b) The 3rd Claimant is entitled to UGX 420,000/= and - (c) The 4th Claimant is entitled to UGX 700,000/=. - (ii) The Respondent shall pay to the 1st and 2nd Claimants the sum of UGX 450,000/= each as general damages and the 3rd and 4th Claimants the sum of UGX 350,000/= each in general damages.

6 [2025! UGIC 33

r [2025] UGCA 115 (25 April 2025)

8 See Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH [2023] IIGIC 89

9 LDR NO. 5 of 2023 Industrial Court 4\* June 2023. *S'*

5 June 2025 LDR05/2024 OLAMA NDUASAVER1NO &3 ORS V ST. JOSEPHVOCATIONALTRAIN!NG SCHOOL EDIOFEAwariAnduZyWabwire

(iii) The Claimants shall have the costs of the claim

It is so ordered.

# **Signed, dated and delivered at Gulu this 16th day of June 2025** e Musana, **The Panelists Agree** 1. Hon. Adrine Namara, » **<?\** 2. Hon. Emmanuel Bigirimana & 3. Hon. Can Amos Lapenga ji Mr. Joseph Etoma Matter for award. We are ready to receive it. Court: Award delivered in open Court. LDR05/2024 OLAMA NDUASAVER1NO &3 ORSVST. JOSEPHVOCATIONALTRAINING SCHOOL EDJOFEAwarclAntbqhyWabwirc Mi b June 2025 "Anffiony Wat **Judge, Indus trfel Court** 1. 2. Anthor **Judge** Claimant in Court Mr. Samuel Mukiza. **16th June 2025 lo-. I Appearances % \\ For the Claimant: None for the Respondent:** Court Clerk: " Mr. Etoma: (0-33 a.m A A/abwire Musana, **Industrial Court of Uganda.**