Nothing in the law precludes a Labour Officer from making a reference for damages to the Industrial Court in the interest of substantive justice as provided under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution
- Waboga David
- Oct 11
- 4 min read
Constructive Dismissal, Delayed Referral, and Damages, Industrial Court Clarifies Jurisdiction and Remedies in Employment Disputes
Case in point
Ruthra Agaba Kamukama v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Labour Dispute Reference No. 163 of 2021 (Arising from KCCA/CEN/LC/240/2016)
Before: Hon. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana
Panelists: Hon. Can Amos Lapenga, Hon. Emmanuel Bigirimana, and Hon. Oling Dawn Kerjewa
Facts
The Claimant, Ruthra Agaba Kamukama, was employed by Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) as Finance and Administration Manager from 13 June 2011 under a renewable 3-year contract at UGX 4,500,000 monthly.
After renewal in June 2014, she raised queries about board members’ allowances, prompting hostility from management. Shortly after, she was accused of negligence and insubordination, redeployed to the Marketing Department, and later accused of absconding from duty.
Feeling victimized, the Claimant sought redress in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 401 of 2014), which referred the matter to the Kampala District Labour Officer (LO). On 6 February 2017, the LO (Ms. Ruth Kulabako Namaarwa) found she had been constructively dismissed and awarded UGX 50,550,000 in compensation. The award was settled by consent in EMA No. 927 of 2017.
In 2018, the Claimant sought a reference to the Industrial Court for general, aggravated, and exemplary damages, arguing that the LO lacked jurisdiction over such remedies. The LO referred the claim in August 2021. The Respondent contended that the arbitral award was final and that the referral was time-barred.
Issues
Whether the reference was properly before the Industrial Court.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to general, aggravated, or exemplary damages.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to costs.
Legal Representation
For the Claimant, Mr. Deogratious Tendo of M/S Simon Tendo Kabenge (STEK) Advocates.
For the Respondent, Mr. Ernest Kisitu, Legal Department, Uganda Broadcasting Corporation.
Submissions
Claimant’s Counsel argued that under Section 5 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006 (LADASA), a Labour Officer can refer matters beyond their jurisdiction to the Industrial Court. The LO rightfully declined to pronounce on damages and referred the question to the Court.
He relied on Ebiju v Umeme Ltd [2015] UGHCCD 15, Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire [2008] UGSC 21, and Dr. Omona Kizito v Marie Stopes Uganda LDC No. 33 of 2015 to argue that damages compensate non-pecuniary harm such as humiliation and psychological distress.
He sought UGX 283,295,000 as general damages, citing loss of reputation and income, and urged the Court to award exemplary damages for UBC’s oppressive and arbitrary conduct.
Respondent’s Counsel countered that the arbitral award was full and final; the referral was made four years later, beyond the eight-week statutory window under Section 5(3) LADASA.
He argued that “equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent,” citing National Bank of Commerce (in liquidation) v Twinobusingye & Others [2021] UGIC 70.
The Respondent also denied any defamation or medical harm, asserting that the consent order settled all disputes.
Court’s Findings
1. On the Propriety of the Reference
The Court acknowledged that while LADASA sets an eight-week limit for references, precedents such as Bosa v Post Bank (U) Ltd [2020] UGIC 33 and Adilo v Afro-Plast Enterprises Ltd [2023] UGIC 42 permit a Labour Officer to refer questions of damages to the Industrial Court in the interest of substantive justice.
“Nothing in the law precludes a Labour Officer from making a reference for damages to this Court in the interest of substantive justice as provided under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.”
The Court held that the LO’s reference was valid, having been properly transmitted with the arbitral record. Hence, the matter was properly before the Court.
2. On General Damages
The Court relied on Uganda Post Ltd v Mukadisi [2023] UGSC 58, which clarified that general damages in employment disputes compensate for non-economic harm like emotional distress and reputational loss. The Court rejected UBC’s argument that no termination occurred, noting that the LO had already determined constructive dismissal, a decision that remained unchallenged.
“The Labour Officer’s finding of constructive dismissal stands unchallenged; therefore, the Claimant is entitled to general damages.”
However, following Standard Chartered Bank v Makoko [2025] UGCA 115, the Court limited general damages to avoid exceeding what the Claimant would have earned under her contract.
3. On Exemplary and Aggravated Damages
Citing Rookes v Barnard [1964] UKHL 1 and Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91, the Court reiterated that exemplary damages apply only in cases of oppressive or unconstitutional conduct. While UBC’s conduct was unfair, the Court found no evidence of malice or profit-motivated oppression to warrant exemplary or aggravated damages.
4. On Costs
Given that the Claimant succeeded on the main issue of general damages but not on aggravated or exemplary damages, the Court awarded her partial costs.
Holding
The reference was properly before the Industrial Court.
The Claimant was constructively dismissed.
The Claimant was entitled to general damages, assessed within the limits of her contractual earnings.
Claims for exemplary and aggravated damages were dismissed.
The Claimant was awarded partial costs.
Key Takeaways
Labour Officers can refer claims for damages to the Industrial Court even beyond strict timelines if the referral promotes substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Constructive dismissal amounts to unlawful termination, entitling an employee to general damages for distress, loss of reputation, and inconvenience.
Consent orders in execution proceedings do not extinguish unresolved claims for non-pecuniary damages.
Exemplary and aggravated damages in employment disputes require proof of malicious, arbitrary, or unconstitutional conduct.
Makoko and Mukadisi precedents affirm that general damages cannot exceed what the employee would have earned under the contract.
Read the full case below
.jpg)
