Industrial Court Clarifies that Labour Officer’s Cease-and-Desist Orders Are Not Court Orders Capable of Grounding Contempt

Waboga David
Sep 2
5 min read

Introduction

A cease-and-desist order generally refers to a directive requiring a party to halt certain actions, most commonly disciplinary proceedings, commercial practices, or contractual breaches, until a dispute is resolved. In employment relations, such orders are intended to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm while complaints are pending before the competent authority. However, their enforceability depends on the legal status of the body issuing them.

In the recent decision of the Industrial Court of Uganda in Katimbo Emmanuel Andrew v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd & Ors (LDMC No. 132 of 2025), the Court clarified that a Labour Officer’s cease-and-desist order, while valid within the officer’s administrative functions, does not amount to a lawful court order capable of grounding contempt proceedings.

The Court, presided over by Hon. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana, held that contempt of court arises only from disobedience of a lawful court order. It clarified that a Labour Officer, acting under the Employment Act, 2006 and the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006, exercises administrative and mediation functions but is not a court of law.

Accordingly, the cease-and-desist order could not ground contempt, and the application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The underlying Labour Dispute Reference No. 085 of 2025 was fixed for expedited hearing in the second week of September 2025.

Facts

The Applicant, an employee of Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated on 21st November 2024, following a suspension on 14th August 2024 for alleged banking fraud. He claimed his requests for relevant documents to prepare his defense were denied, prompting him to file a labour complaint with the Labour Officer at Kawempe Division Urban Council, Kampala Capital City Authority.

On 30th January 2025, the Labour Officer issued a CDO to halt the disciplinary proceedings pending resolution of the complaint. Despite this, the Respondents scheduled a disciplinary hearing for 19th August 2025, which the Applicant argued was in contempt of the CDO.

The Respondents, represented by Ms. Ruth Birungi, Legal Manager Litigation for the Bank, opposed the application. They argued that the CDO was not a lawful court order, as the Labour Officer lacked judicial authority to issue such an order under Section 92 of the Employment Act. They further contended that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (bank officers) were improperly joined, as they were not parties to the main labour dispute, and that the disciplinary proceedings were lawful and necessary due to the Applicant’s failure to attend prior hearings.

Key Issues

The Court framed the central issue as whether the Respondents were in contempt of the Labour Officer’s CDO. This required determining:

Whether a lawful court order existed.
Whether the Respondents had knowledge of the order.
Whether the Respondents failed to comply with the order.

Coram

Hon. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana with Panelists Hon. Adrine Namara, Hon. Susan Nabirye and Hon. Michael Matovu

Representation:

For the Applicant: Mr. Stanley Oketcho and Ms. Elizabeth, M/S GEM Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Josephine Muhaise, M/S S & L Advocates

Parties’ Arguments

Applicant’s Case

The CDO was a lawful order issued under Section 92 of the Employment Act.
The Respondents were aware of it and had acquiesced to it for over six months without challenging it.
Proceeding with a disciplinary hearing on 19 August 2025 was a deliberate act of contempt.
Sought imprisonment, fines, and damages.

Respondents’ Case

The CDO was not a lawful court order but an administrative directive; hence, contempt could not arise.
The Labour Officer lacks judicial authority and cannot issue binding injunctions against employers.
The disciplinary proceedings had been delayed since 2024 due to the Applicant’s non-participation.
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were wrongly joined as parties.

Court’s Findings

The Court examined the statutory framework under the Employment Act, 2006 (EA) and the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006 (LADASA). Section 2 of the EA and Section 1 of LADASA define a Labour Officer as an administrative officer, such as the Commissioner or a district labour officer, but do not designate the Labour Officer as a court.

The Court relied on judicial precedents to clarify this distinction:

In Mugyenzi v. Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd ([2019] UGCA 120), the Court of Appeal held that a “court” refers to a court of judicature or a subordinate court, explicitly excluding Labour Officers.
In Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v. Ayikoru Milka (H.C.C.R No. 64 of 2011), Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru emphasized that Labour Officers serve as an informal, speedy, and inexpensive forum for resolving employment disputes, distinct from the formal judicial processes of civil courts.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Eseza Byakika v. National Social Security Fund ([2025] UGSC 11) further clarified that Labour Officers perform administrative and mediation roles under Sections 12 and 13 of the EA, without judicial powers. Justice Catherine Bamugemereire’s dissenting opinion underscored that Labour Officers are not courts of judicature under Article 129(1) of the Constitution.

The Court concluded that a Labour Officer is an office of first instance, tasked with mediation and ensuring compliance with labour standards, not a judicial body capable of issuing court orders.

Legality of the Cease-and-Desist Order

The Applicant argued that the CDO was lawful under Section 92 of the EA, which empowers Labour Officers to address infringements of the Act. However, the Respondents contended that the CDO was an injunction not provided for under Section 92(3) and was issued without an adjudication hearing or settlement agreement, rendering it unlawful.

The Court agreed with the Respondents, finding that:

Section 92(2) and (3) of the EA do not explicitly authorize Labour Officers to issue injunctions like a CDO.
Orders under Section 92 require adjudication or a settlement, neither of which occurred in this case, as per Kamuhanda and 27 Others v. MS Katende, Ssempebwa and Company Advocates ([2025] UGIC 11).
Unlike the Magistrates’ Courts Act, which establishes magistrates as subordinate courts, the EA does not confer judicial status on Labour Officers.

Thus, the CDO was not a lawful court order, and contempt proceedings could not be sustained.

Contempt of Court

The Court adopted the three-pronged test for contempt as outlined in KCB Uganda Limited v. Kasekende ([2022] UGIC 63):

(i) existence of a lawful court order,

(ii) the contemnor’s knowledge of the order, and

(iii) failure to comply.

Since the CDO was not a court order, the Court found it unnecessary to consider the second and third conditions.

The application was deemed moot.

Joinder of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents

The Applicant relied on Lubwama v. Swift Links Investments Ltd & 3 Ors ([2014] UGHCLD 128) to argue that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, as officers of the Bank, were properly joined because the CDO restrained their actions. The Respondents countered that Lubwama was distinguishable, as it involved fraud to defeat a court order, which was not applicable here.

The Court did not explicitly rule on this issue, as the absence of a lawful court order rendered the joinder question irrelevant.

Costs and Expedited Hearing

The Respondents sought costs, arguing that the Applicant’s application was an abuse of court process aimed at delaying disciplinary proceedings. However, the Court declined to award costs, citing Kyamugisha v. Mutungo Executive Hotel Ltd and Uganda Revenue Authority (unreported), which held that imposing costs on aggrieved employees could hinder access to labour justice.

The Court also noted the urgency of the underlying Labour Dispute Reference No. 085 of 2025 and directed the Registrar to schedule it for hearing in the second week of September 2025.

Orders

Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 132 of 2025 was dismissed.
No order as to costs was made.
The Registrar was directed to place Labour Dispute Reference No. 085 of 2025 on the cause list for an expedited hearing in the second week of September 2025.

Conclusion

By dismissing the contempt application, the Court emphasized that only court orders can trigger contempt proceedings, highlighting the administrative role of Labour Officers.

Read the full case