The Industrial Court Has Reaffirmed that under Regulation 45(1) of the Employment Regulations, an appeal from a Labour Officer’s decision is commenced by a notice of appeal, not a memorandum of appeal

Waboga David
Oct 14
5 min read

Itungo Simon & 12 Others v Kyagalanyi Coffee Ltd

Coram: Hon. Anthony Wabwire Musana, Hon. Adrine Namara, and Hon. Susan Nabirye

Facts

The Applicants, a group of 13 former employees (Itungo Simon, Alinga Emma, Acai Daniel Obok, Baguma Vincent, Musisi Vincent, Obura Charles, David Lule Sekitende, Masolo Swaibu, Adot George Michael, Tumukunde Ronald Arthur, Eric Kaweesa Kigozi, Bindeeba Mustafa, and Yawe Aaron), filed Labour Dispute No. MGLSD/LC/346/2021 against the Respondent, Kyagalanyi Coffee Ltd. They sought recovery of UGX 1,458,593,315 for claims including unpaid overtime, severance allowance, compensation for denied annual leave, weekly rest, repatriation allowance, and damages for unlawful termination.

On May 15, 2024, the Labour Officer (Commissioner Apollo Onzoma) delivered an award in favor of the Applicants, granting them UGX 580,411,087. The Respondent filed a notice of appeal on May 17, 2024, which was endorsed by the Industrial Court Registrar on May 21, 2024. However, the memorandum of appeal was only filed on February 25, 2025—280 days after the Labour Officer's award.

The Applicants brought Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2025 to strike out Labour Dispute Appeal No. 10 of 2024, arguing it was incompetent due to being filed out of time. The Respondent opposed, attributing the delay to the Labour Officer's late transmission of the record of proceedings. The matter was linked to a related application (LDMA 83 of 2025) concerning security for costs, but the court addressed this application separately.

Issues for Determination

Whether Labour Dispute Appeal No. 10 of 2024 was filed out of time and is therefore incompetent.
Whether the application to strike out the appeal is res judicata or moot.
Whether the Respondent’s affidavit and notice of motion were properly executed and authorised.
Whether the Applicants are entitled to costs.

Submissions

Applicants' Submissions

Counsel argued that the appeal was filed 280 days after the May 15, 2024 award, exceeding the 30-day limit under Regulation 45(1) of the Employment Regulations. No extension of time was sought, and Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to Industrial Court appeals.

They relied on Ridar Hotel Limited v Bitira Khalid Beat [2024] UGIC 15 and Team University v Byaruhanga [2020] UGIC 5 to assert that appeals filed out of time are incompetent.

The Applicants claimed prejudice from the delay, including non-payment of the decretal sum within 7 days as required by Regulation 8(4), and no accrual of interest. They sought to strike out the appeal with costs.

Respondent's Submissions

Opposing the application, Counsel raised preliminary points:

(i) lack of authority in the supporting affidavit (citing Taremwa Kamishani & 8 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors [2012] UGHC 101);

(ii) defective notice of motion (citing Ombade Moses v VG Keshwala Sons Ltd, LDMA No. 48 of 2019);

(iii) the application was moot and res judicata (citing Nabulya v Children at Risk Action Network (CRANE) and Another [2023] UGIC 32 and Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act); and

(iv) falsehoods in the affidavit (citing Sirasi Bitaitana v Emmanuel Kananura [1977] HCB 34).

On the merits, they argued the appeal was properly instituted via the timely notice of appeal, with the memorandum filed after receiving the delayed record on February 19, 2025. The delay was not inordinate and caused no prejudice.

They cited AFNET v Blanche, LDMA No. 196 of 2019; Kampala Capital City Authority v Buwunga [2023] UGIC 53; Kasese Cobalt Co. Ltd v David Kabagambe [2019] UGIC 215; and Victoria University v Bbaale [2023] UGIC 112 to support that a notice of appeal commences the process, and delays due to official records are excusable. The application should be dismissed with costs.

Rejoinder

The Applicants refuted the preliminary points, noting the notice of motion was endorsed on May 27, 2025, and the deponent was authorized. They argued the application was not moot, and the Respondent exceeded submission page limits. They reiterated the 30-day appeal deadline under Regulation 45, claiming no extension was sought. Citing Wabwire Namisano and Another v Imochu Namisano [2024] UGHCCD 186, they argued the late appeal was void, an abuse of process, and caused prejudice. No falsehoods existed in their affidavit.

Legal Representation

Applicants: Represented by Mr. Jonan Nuwandinda Rwambuka Esq. of Rwambuka Advocates. The supporting affidavit was sworn by Tumukunde Ronald Arthur, one of the Applicants.
Respondent: Represented by Ms. Spera Nowomugisha (who swore the opposing affidavit) and Mr. Augustine Idoot Esq. of Kampala Associated Advocates

Court’s Findings

The Industrial Court began by reaffirming that;

“It is trite that an appeal is a creature of statute.”

Under Section 93(1) of the Employment Act and Regulation 45(1) of the Employment Regulations, S.I. No. 61 of 2011, an appeal from a Labour Officer’s decision is initiated by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days in the form prescribed in the Seventeenth Schedule.

The Court noted:

“The schedule specifies a notice of appeal, not a memorandum of appeal, as the first document. This approach is contained in various decisions of this Court.”

The Court further cited its consistency in previous decisions of Ridar Hotel Ltd v Bitira Khalid – confirming that an appeal commences with a notice of appeal and Kampala Capital City Authority v Buwunga – holding that the notice of appeal suffices to commence an appeal within time.

The record showed that the notice of appeal was filed on 17 May 2024—well within six days of the award dated 15 May 2024—and endorsed by the Registrar on 21 May 2024.

Thus, the Court found:

“The notice of appeal was in the Registry of this Court within six days of the Labour Officer’s award, well within the thirty days prescribed under Regulation 45(1).”

Accordingly, the Court held that the Respondent had properly commenced the appeal and the Applicants’ contention that it was filed out of time was without foundation.

Holding

The application to strike out Labour Dispute Appeal No. 10 of 2024 was dismissed.

The Court declined to award costs, stating:

“This Court shall not condemn the Applicants to costs because of its equity-driven ethos. Aggrieved employees seeking access to labour justice should not be denied a determination by being burdened with costs.”

Key Takeaways

🔹 Under Regulation 45(1) of the Employment Regulations, an appeal from a Labour Officer’s decision is commenced by a notice of appeal, not a memorandum of appeal.

🔹 The 30-day period applies to the notice of appeal, not to the subsequent filing of the memorandum of appeal or record of proceedings.

🔹Parties must seek an extension of time if unable to file within statutory timelines.

🔹 The Industrial Court reaffirmed its equitable approach, refraining from penalising workers with costs even when unsuccessful.

🔹 Mere procedural irregularities or previous similar applications do not bar substantive determination when justice demands clarity on statutory compliance.

Read the full case