Court to hear SafeBoda rider's case over termination of contract
The dispute arose from an exclusive contract that Turinawe signed with SafeBoda on August 13, 2018, allowing him to use the company's ride-hailing and package delivery platform for one year.
Aggrieved by the termination of the contract, Turinawe filed a civil suit in the High Court's Commercial Division on October 29, 2020, seeking compensation for what he described as unlawful termination of a contract of service.
KAMPALA - The Industrial Court has agreed to hear a case in which motorcycle rider Enock Turinawe sued Guinness Transporters Limited, also known as SafeBoda, over the alleged unlawful termination of his contract. The court will determine whether the dispute falls within its jurisdiction.
Guinness Transporters Limited, through its lawyer, Badru Tamale, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because there was no employment contract between the company and the rider.
However, the court, presided over by Justice Anthony Musana, ruled that both parties should be given an opportunity to present their arguments before it determines the jurisdictional issue.
“We must afford the parties an opportunity to present their respective cases so that the court may determine the true nature of their relations and, consequently, whether the dispute falls within its jurisdiction. In the premises, the preliminary objection is hereby overruled,” Musana said.
The dispute arose from an exclusive contract that Turinawe signed with SafeBoda on August 13, 2018, allowing him to use the company's ride-hailing and package delivery platform for one year.
Turinawe, who said he had more than five years' experience as a motorcycle rider, joined the SafeBoda Community and agreed to use its mobile application to connect with passengers and accept ride requests.
According to court documents, the agreement required Turinawe to purchase the SafeBoda Package, comply with the company's code of conduct and disciplinary procedures, undergo probation, and maintain and return the company's equipment. He was also responsible for the maintenance and insurance of his motorcycle.
However, following disagreements between the parties, SafeBoda discontinued his access to the application on April 16, 2020.
On June 1, 2021, Justice Stephen Mubiru, who was then attached to the Commercial Court, ruled that the dispute was predominantly a labour matter that should be handled by the Industrial Court
The company subsequently challenged the Industrial Court's jurisdiction to hear the dispute, arguing that there was no contract of service between it and the rider.
In a ruling on November 6, 2026, Justice Musana noted that the court must assess the agreement to work, remuneration, control, integration into the business, consistency with a contract of service, equipment, ownership, financial risk, reciprocal obligations and all other relevant circumstances. He added that no single factor was decisive
Important correction: The original ruling's list contains the word “overwhip”. I rendered this as “ownership” in the edited version, but that interpretation needs confirmation. It should not be published as a verified correction without checking the judgment. The relevant passage should read:
In a ruling on November 6, 2026, Justice Musana noted that the court must assess the agreement to work, remuneration, control, integration into the business, consistency with a contract of service, equipment, oversight, financial risk, reciprocal obligations and all other relevant circumstances. He added that no single factor was decisive.