ANALYSIS OF ORINGO V DEDE FARMING TRACTORS UGANDA LIMITED [2025] UGIC 47 (7 JULY 2025)

Obita Calvin Stewart
Jul 10
4 min read

Updated: Jul 11

Calvin Stewart Obita*

1.0 CASE BRIEF

Industrial Court of Uganda

Court & Panel

The case was decided by the Industrial Court of Uganda established under the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act on 7 July 2025. Judge Wabwire Musana and Panel Members Hon. Namara, Hon. Bigirimana, Hon. Lapenga.

Nature of the Case

Oringo, employed as a Workshop Manager, alleged that he was owed UGX 39 million in unpaid salary arrears for 19.5 months following non-payment after September 2020. The employer denied the claim on the grounds that Oringo had absconded, and further argued that Dede Farming Tractors was a “non-existent entity” lacking legal capacity to be sued.

Facts

Oringo produced his signed employment contract, timesheets, and testimony from four colleagues confirming full-time duty until August 2020. He testified that salary payments ceased after September 2020. The employer’s key defenses were twofold: that the claimant had abandoned his post and that, not being a registered company, it could not be sued.

Issues for Determination

The Court was asked to determine:

(i) whether a suit could lie against an unregistered entity;

(ii) whether Oringo was owed salary arrears;

(iii) whether there was a valid employment relationship in the absence of registration; and

(iv) whether Oringo should receive general damages for non-payment.

Principle of Law

The Court applied a purposive interpretation of "employer" under Section 2 of Uganda’s Employment Act, which includes unregistered associations or groups engaging workers. Citing Wabwire v Pachedo Foundation,[1] the court emphasised that employment law prioritises substance over form to protect workers, unlike strict corporate law principles.

Evidence showed the Respondent’s director signed the employment contract, and witnesses confirmed the Claimant’s work. The court held the employment relationship was real, regardless of registration.

Decision / Holding

The Court found in favour of the Claimant. It held that Dede Farming Tractors could be sued despite its lack of registration, as it clearly operated as an employer. It also rejected the assertion that Oringo absconded, citing evidence of continued engagement through August 2020. On the salary claim, the Court awarded UGX 7.6 million in arrears reflecting the 8 months of verified non-payment and, UGX 2 million as general damages. Costs were awarded to the Claimant due to the Respondent’s unfounded defences.

Orders

The Court ordered that:

Oringo be paid UGX 7.6 million salary arrears plus interest.
Oringo be granted UGX 2 million in general damages.
Respondent to pay the costs of the suit.

2.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION

2.1 STRENGTHENING PROTECTION FOR INFORMAL WORKERS AND UNREGISTERED EMPLOYERS

The Court’s decision affirms that employees working for unregistered or informal entities in Uganda are entitled to the full protection of employment law. This is significant, given that over 70% of Ugandan workers are in informal arrangements without written contracts or employer registration leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and lack of recourse when wages are withheld.[2]

By enforcing legal rights despite the respondent’s lack of registration, the Court elevated the principle of substance over form, ensuring that labour protections apply to all workers, regardless of employer compliance with administrative requirements.

2.2 EMPLOYER ACCOUNTABILITY AND FORMALISATION INCENTIVES

This ruling sets a precedent that employers must formalise labour relations or face legal liability irrespective of registration status. For unregistered businesses such as small workshops or agricultural firms, the decision sends a clear warning: informal status does not extinguish legal responsibility. It brings the Industrial Court’s jurisprudence into harmony with the government’s broader push toward formalisation, as outlined in the Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Bill, which removes workforce thresholds to extend protections to smaller firms.[3] Employers now have greater incentive to register with URSB, URA, and labour institutions, enhancing both productivity and accountability.[4]

2.3 REINFORCES EVIDENCE-DRIVEN CLAIMS AND EMPLOYER OBLIGATIONS

The Court’s reliance on strict evidentiary standards requiring documentation and witness testimony for salary arrears highlights Uganda’s legal requirement for record-keeping by both parties. Simultaneously, employees learn that accurate record-keeping strengthens their claims. This mutual obligation supports investor confidence while advancing labour rights.

2.4 RECOGNITION OF NON-ECONOMIC HARM

Awarding UGX 2 million as general damages for non-payment demonstrates that the Court acknowledges emotional and reputational harm arising from labour violations. This follows prior principles in Alaba v Bank of Uganda and indicates a trend toward holistic compensation not just financial redress. Workers can now seek damages for psychological stress and reputational damage, a meaningful evolution in labour jurisprudence.

2.5 COSTS AS A TOOL FOR LABOUR COMPLIANCE

By awarding costs against the Respondent, the Court emphasised that unjust defences and delay tactics will not be tolerated. Employers adopting a strategy of letting cases languish or stonewalling claimants may be penalised financially. This approach reduces unnecessary litigation and encourages preemptive resolution of disputes.

2.6 CATALYST FOR BROADER REGULATORY REFORMS

The judgment supports ongoing policy aims, including: OSH Amendment Bill (2023): Expanding safety protections to smaller enterprises; Draft Minimum Wage Bill that aims to address wage inadequacies in informal sectors.[5] Together, these measures aim to boost labour formalisation and protection.

2.7 JUDICIAL SIGNAL: WORKER-CENTERED LABOUR JURISPRUDENCE

This case contributes to a growing body of pro-employee jurisprudence, notably in Wabwire v Pachedo Foundation and Alaba v Bank of Uganda. Courts are increasingly interpreting ambiguities in favour of vulnerable workers, advancing the constitutional directive to administer labour law with a pro-worker bias. In a country where most workers are in the informal economy, this approach strengthens fundamental rights to dignified work and just compensation.

3.0 CONCLUSION

The Oringo judgment has profound implications: it empowers vulnerable workers, compelling all employers registered or not to observe labour laws. It reinforces documentation and accountability, and recognises non-economic harm in labour disputes. Moreover, it aligns beautifully with legislative trends toward formalisation and protection in the informal economy. In short, Oringo is more than a single‐claim victory it is a judicial catalyst, accelerating Uganda’s broader shift toward an inclusive, rights-based labour framework.

The pdf version of the article is accessible here;