Supreme Court Settles 34 Year Dispute Between Gov’t, Former Coffee Marketing Board Employees

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal filed by Coffee Marketing Board Limited, upholding an Industrial Court decision awarding compensation to former employees of the now-defunct Coffee Marketing Board (CMB). In a lead judgment written by Justice Elizabeth Musoke, the Supreme Court observed that the Trade Disputes Arbitration and Settlement Act, which established the Industrial Court, then did not provide for an appeal of its decisions.

Therefore, any appeal or judicial review of the decision of the Industrial Court, which was then not a division of the High Court but rather a judicial body, was illegal. “I would therefore agree with the Court of Appeal’s view that Kabiito, J erred when he allowed the appellant’s application for judicial review, yet it was not a suitable application for judicial review. However, I would differ from the Court of Appeal’s view that the appellant could lodge an appeal against the Industrial Court’s award. In my view…the decisions of the Industrial Court under the TDAASA were final and not subject to challenge whether by appeal or judicial review,” Justice Musoke ruled.

The ruling was in response to an appeal filed by Coffee Marketing Board Limited against the National Union of Clerical Commercial Professional and Technical Employees, a trade union representing 264 former employees of the CMB. The CMB was a government body established by the first Obote government under the Coffee Marketing Act of 1969, and given the sole mandate for handling the exportation of coffee from Uganda. With the coming of the NRM government and its liberalization policies, the CMB was disbanded in 1989 and replaced with the Uganda Coffee Development Authority.

The Coffee Marketing Board Limited was incorporated to manage the liquidation and eventual dissolution of the CMB so as to facilitate the transition to the UCDA. During this transitional period, many of CMB’s employees, including the 264, had their jobs terminated. Subsequently, an agreement was made setting out various provisions to guide the computation of severance packages for the employees, in deserving cases.

However, a dispute arose as to the correct interpretation of the agreement, prompting the 264 to file a claim in the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court ruled in favour of the former employees and ordered the Coffee Marketing Board Limited to compensate them in accordance with the guidance set out in its award. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Coffee Marketing Board Limited filed for a judicial review, which was decided in 1995 by Justice Herbert Ntabgoba, who found that the Industrial Court had relied on wrong provisions of the agreement in arriving at the compensation amount.

He subsequently ordered that the Industrial Court rehear the matter following the correct basis of awarding the retrenched workers’ package. Following this guidance, the Industrial Court re-considered the matter and made an award dated December 3rd 2004 awarding compensation to the 264 employees. Dissatisfied, the Coffee Marketing Board Limited again filed for another judicial review, which was heard by Justice Benjamin Kabiito, who quashed the Industrial Court’s award and an order of prohibition staying its enforcement.

Kabiito said that the Industrial Court’s award contained a glaring and manifest error of law arising from a misapprehension that Justice Ntabgoba made a finding in his decision that some payment was still due to the employees, whereas not. Kabiito stated that no such finding could be made in an application for judicial review. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the 264 employees through their union appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Three justices: Kenneth Kakuru, Geofrey Kiryabwire and Christopher Madrama quashed Kabiito’s ruling, arguing that he was wrong to reach his decision in a judicial review application based on the merits of the Industrial Court’s award, yet judicial review is limited to the decision-making process alone. The Court of Appeal reinstated the Industrial Court decision in its entirety. Dissatisfied, the Coffee Marketing Board appealed the decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had misdirected itself to the law and the facts by allowing the appeal.

In her ruling, Justice Musoke agreed with the Court of Appeal that decisions of the Industrial Court were not subject to judicial review. However, the Justice also disagreed with the Court of Appeal when she noted that even appeals to the Industrial Court decisions were not provided for. “It is a well-established principle that an appeal is a creature of statute, implying that a decision is appealable only if the relevant statute explicitly provides an appeal from it. It therefore follows that the awards of the Industrial Court under the TDAASA were final and could not be appealed,” Justice Musoke’s ruling reads in part.

The Justice also observed that Judicial review cannot apply to courts but rather only government or quasi-judicial bodies. “In my view, considering the nature of the cases in the relevant case law, the remedy of judicial review applies only to decisions of administrative bodies or quasi-judicial bodies exercising administrative functions. Therefore, it is doubtful…that judicial review applies to judicial bodies, such as the Industrial Court in this case, whose decisions are ordinarily challenged in appeals…Be that as it may, assuming that the Industrial Court’s award was open to challenge in a judicial review application, such challenge was restricted to the decision-making process in arriving at the award, and not the merits of the award,” Justice Musoke’s ruling reads in part.

Her position was emphasized by Justice Catherine Bamugemereire, who also observed that a judicial review is only concerned with the procedure and not the merits of the case. “Judicial review may apply to administrative bodies; it is unlikely to extend to judicial bodies such as the Industrial Court. Even if judicial review were available, the appellant’s grounds are mischaracterised, as they concern the merits rather than procedural matters,” Justice Bamugemereire’s ruling reads in part.

In the past, the High Court judges have heard and determined judicial review applications arising from the decision of another High Court judge. In many instances, the review applications would be touching the merits of the case and not simply the procedures leading to the conclusion. Many such applications end up when the first judge’s ruling is overturned by another judge. In this ruling, the Supreme Court says that when a party is displeased with the ruling, provided the law allows it, such a ruling can only be undone through an appeal and not a judicial review.

Having held that the appeal was not provided for in the law, the Supreme Court ordered that Coffee Marketing Board Limited immediately implement the ruling of the Industrial Court and pay compensation to the former employees. It also ordered that the Coffee Marketing Board pays for the cost of the suit in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and in the High Court. Other judges on the panel were Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi, Stephen Musota and Monica Mugenyi-URN.