News
Industrial Court dismisses Nsambya Hospital bid to block ex-employee’s case
Court records indicate that Ntabazi initially filed a complaint before the Labour Officer at Makindye Urban Division Council, who later referred the matter to the Industrial Court.
Industrial Court dismisses Nsambya Hospital bid to block ex-employee’s case
By: Barbra Kabahumuza, Journalist @New Vision
________________
The Industrial Court has dismissed an application by St Francis Hospital Nsambya seeking to strike out a wrongful dismissal claim filed by its former employee, Julius Ntabazi, clearing the way for the main labour dispute to proceed.
Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana, together with panellists Adrine Namara, Susan Nabirye and Michael Matovu, rejected all objections raised by the hospital and ordered it to pay the costs of the application.
The hospital, through its legal entity, the Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese, had asked the court to dismiss Labour Dispute Reference No. 277 of 2025, arguing that it was res judicata, an abuse of court process and improperly before the court.
The dispute stems from Ntabazi’s dismissal from employment as a Records Officer on December 3, 2024, on allegations of gross misconduct.
Court records indicate that Ntabazi initially filed a complaint before the Labour Officer at Makindye Urban Division Council, who later referred the matter to the Industrial Court.
The hospital argued that Ntabazi had earlier filed Labour Dispute Reference No. 142 of 2025 but later withdrew it. According to the hospital, the withdrawal extinguished the claim and barred him from filing a fresh case on the same cause of action.
However, the court disagreed, holding that under Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, withdrawal of a suit does not prevent a party from filing a fresh claim, provided it is filed within the prescribed limitation period.
Justice Musana cited Court of Appeal authorities and noted that a withdrawn suit is merely discontinued and does not bar subsequent proceedings.
“The withdrawal of LDR 142 of 2025 was not a bar to the institution of LDR 277 of 2025,” the court ruled.
Court records indicate that Ntabazi initially filed a complaint before the Labour Officer at Makindye Urban Division Council, who later referred the matter to the Industrial Court.
The hospital argued that Ntabazi had earlier filed Labour Dispute Reference No. 142 of 2025 but later withdrew it. According to the hospital, the withdrawal extinguished the claim and barred him from filing a fresh case on the same cause of action.
However, the court disagreed, holding that under Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, withdrawal of a suit does not prevent a party from filing a fresh claim, provided it is filed within the prescribed limitation period.
Justice Musana cited Court of Appeal authorities and noted that a withdrawn suit is merely discontinued and does not bar subsequent proceedings.
“The withdrawal of LDR 142 of 2025 was not a bar to the institution of LDR 277 of 2025,” the court ruled.
The judges further rejected the hospital’s argument that the Labour Officer’s referral could only be used once and expired after the first case was withdrawn.
The court held that the referral remained valid and that the fresh claim was properly before the Industrial Court.
The hospital had also challenged Ntabazi’s legal standing, arguing that he filed the case using the name “Julius Ntabazi” instead of his official names, “Ntabazi Huzaifa Julius”.
However, the court found that the hospital itself had used different versions of his name in various employment documents, including appointment, suspension and termination letters.
Justice Musana described the discrepancy as a curable misnomer and ruled that it could not be used to defeat the claim.
“It is impossible to say that the applicant recognised the respondent as Ntabazi Huzaifa Julius, Ntabazi Julius and Huzaifa Ntabazi at different times during his employment and exit from the applicant, but does not recognise him now,” the court observed.
The hospital also sought to disqualify Ntabazi’s lawyer, Stella Nabanja Mukwaya Ojinga, alleging a conflict of interest because she had previously served in several senior positions at the hospital, including legal adviser, board secretary and hospital administrator.
However, the court declined to remove the lawyer from the proceedings.
The judges held that allegations of conflict of interest cannot be determined through mere assertions and must be raised through a formal application in which the advocate concerned is made a party and given an opportunity to respond.
The court found that no such application had been filed and that determining the issue without hearing from the lawyer would violate principles of fair hearing.
Consequently, the application was dismissed in its entirety.
“There seems to us to be no logical, legitimate, or justifiable basis upon which to grant this application,” Justice Musana ruled.
The court ordered the hospital to pay costs, saying Ntabazi had been unnecessarily compelled to defend an application that lacked merit.
The court held that the referral remained valid and that the fresh claim was properly before the Industrial Court.
The hospital had also challenged Ntabazi’s legal standing, arguing that he filed the case using the name “Julius Ntabazi” instead of his official names, “Ntabazi Huzaifa Julius”.
However, the court found that the hospital itself had used different versions of his name in various employment documents, including appointment, suspension and termination letters.
Justice Musana described the discrepancy as a curable misnomer and ruled that it could not be used to defeat the claim.
“It is impossible to say that the applicant recognised the respondent as Ntabazi Huzaifa Julius, Ntabazi Julius and Huzaifa Ntabazi at different times during his employment and exit from the applicant, but does not recognise him now,” the court observed.
The hospital also sought to disqualify Ntabazi’s lawyer, Stella Nabanja Mukwaya Ojinga, alleging a conflict of interest because she had previously served in several senior positions at the hospital, including legal adviser, board secretary and hospital administrator.
However, the court declined to remove the lawyer from the proceedings.
The judges held that allegations of conflict of interest cannot be determined through mere assertions and must be raised through a formal application in which the advocate concerned is made a party and given an opportunity to respond.
The court found that no such application had been filed and that determining the issue without hearing from the lawyer would violate principles of fair hearing.
Consequently, the application was dismissed in its entirety.
“There seems to us to be no logical, legitimate, or justifiable basis upon which to grant this application,” Justice Musana ruled.
The court ordered the hospital to pay costs, saying Ntabazi had been unnecessarily compelled to defend an application that lacked merit.