The Industrial Court has found Royal Mabati Ltd in contempt of court for failing to issue a former employee with a certificate of service as ordered, and has slapped the company with UGX 10 million in damages.
The ruling, delivered on July 10, 2026, by Hon. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana sitting with panelists Hon. Adrine Namara, Hon. Susan Nabirye and Hon. Michael Matovu, arose from Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 185 of 2023, filed by former employee Mandela Sulaiman.
Mandela, represented by Joseph Amanya of Moriah Advocates, moved court under the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act and related rules seeking a declaration that Royal Mabati Ltd was in contempt for failing to comply with an award in Labour Dispute Reference No. 161 of 2021.
In that earlier award, delivered on 3 May 2023, the Court had directed the company to issue him a certificate of service within 21 days.
In the fresh application, Mandela asked for exemplary or punitive damages of UGX 100 million, or in the alternative a fine, plus interest and costs, arguing that the company’s refusal to comply undermined the authority and sanctity of court orders.
In his affidavit, Mandela stated that despite repeated demands through his lawyers and by email, Royal Mabati failed or refused to issue the certificate within the stipulated time.
He noted that the company was fully aware of the award and decree, having filed applications for stay of execution and for leave to appeal, both of which were dismissed. He said the continued refusal to issue the certificate had caused him inconvenience, mental anguish and difficulty in getting another job, including the loss of an opportunity with Scod Technology Solution Limited.
He maintained that the conduct of the company amounted to a “deliberate disregard of lawful court orders” and clearly constituted contempt.
Royal Mabati, represented by M/s Atuhairwe Nicholas & Advocates, opposed the application through an affidavit sworn by its Managing Director, Esther Kangurua. She acknowledged that the Court had delivered an award in favour of Mandela and that the company received correspondence requiring compliance.
However, she said the company had lodged a notice of appeal, requested the record of proceedings, instructed new advocates, and filed fresh notices of appeal, together with applications for stay of execution before the Court of Appeal.
The company insisted that a substantive appeal was pending and argued that the contempt application was premature because granting it “would render the pending appeal nugatory.” She denied that Royal Mabati had disrespected or deliberately disobeyed the Court’s orders.
In rejoinder, Mandela dismissed the respondent’s defence as defective and based on falsehoods. He pointed out that issues around the notices of appeal had already been canvassed in Miscellaneous Application No. 122 of 2023, where the company had distanced itself from one of the notices it now relied on. He further stated that he had never been served with the notice of appeal cited by the Respondent.
Mandela insisted that an appeal does not, by itself, operate as a stay of execution and said he had moved to have the appeal dismissed for failure by the company to take the necessary steps to prosecute it. He added that the contempt application had in fact been filed before the purported appeal and that the company had simply failed to obey a clear order to issue a certificate of service.
In submissions, his counsel, Amanya, argued that Royal Mabati’s inaction plainly violated the award in LDR 161 of 2021 directing issuance of a certificate within 21 days. Citing authorities including Megha, he asked the Court to send a strong signal that court orders “are not issued in vain and ought to be respected while they remain in force,” and urged that damages of UGX 100 million were reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court used the case to restate the vital role of certificates of service in employment law.
Referring to its earlier decision in Aronda Barnabas v Uganda Revenue Authority, the panel emphasised that under section 60EA, an employer must issue a certificate indicating the names and addresses of the parties, the nature of the employer’s business, the length of continuous service, the capacity in which the employee was employed, the wages at termination, and, where requested, the reasons for termination. Under Section 60(2) and (3) of the Employment Act, the certificate must not contain any judgment on or evaluation of the employee’s work and must be written in a language the employee can reasonably understand.
The Court reiterated that “a certificate of service can be used to seek alternative employment” and that “employers should therefore issue certificates of service promptly to enable their former employees to move on to other chapters of their lives.”
After reviewing the facts and legal principles, the Industrial Court agreed that monetary compensation was warranted.
“For these reasons, we find that the award of damages is appropriate. However, we consider UGX 100,000,000/= excessive, particularly since the decretal sum is UGX 13,849,587/=,” Justice Musana held.
“We therefore award damages in the sum of UGX 10,000,000/= payable within 45 days of this order. The certificate of service shall also be placed with the Registrar of this Court within 21 days. The Applicant shall have costs of the application.”
