QUESTION: The issue of employment status has been defined as contentious

matter as per Professor Gwyneth Pitt in her book “employment perspectives”.

Judges have developed mechanisms to define an employer and employee. Critically,
examine the tests or mechanism developed by judges in defining the employee
status.

An employee1 is defined as someone who works in the service of another person (the

employer) under an express or implied contact of hire, under which the employer

has the right to control the details of work performance2. Whereas an employer3 is

defined to mean a person, company4, or organization for whom someone works

especially one who controls and directs a worker under an express or implied

contact of hire and who pays the worker’s salary or wages.

Lord Irvine of Large LC, in Carmichael and Another Vs National Power PLC5

observes that unless it appeared from the terms of documents, or from what was

done or said at the time or subsequently, that the parties intended those

documents to form an exclusive memorial of their relationship, it is not appropriate

to determine the nature of that relationship solely by reference to the documents.

Moreover, the question of whether the parties intended a document to be the

exclusive record of the terms of their agreement was a question of fact. Lord

Hoffmann6 entirely agreeing with Lord Irunne, added a few words only on the

1
Definition of an employee under Section 2 of the Employment Act Laws of Uganda
2
Bryan A. Garner, Black’s law Dictionary, 2014, west publishing company, 10th edition at page 639
3
at page 641 ibid
4
For definition of a company see section 2 of the companies Act of 2012
5
(1999)4 ALLER 87, HL,
6
Carmichael and Another Vs National Power P/C (1999)4 ALLER 87, HL,
troublesome distinction between questions of fact and questions of law, where he

said that “the questions of law which are for the judges fall into two categories:

first there questions which cannot be correctly answered except by someone who is

skilled in the law. Secondly, there are questions of fact which lawyers have

decided that judges can answer better than Juries”. Included, in the second

category is the construction of documents in their natural and ordinary meaning.

Lord Evershed MR in Laws vs. London chronicles (indicator Newspapers) Ltd7 notes

that a contract of service is but an example of contracts in general, so the general

law of contract is applicable. In legal terms, a contract of employment is a binding

agreement made, voluntarily and the duties are agreed by the parties either

personally or through employers’ associations and trade unions8. An employee

means on individual who has entered into or works under, or, where the employment

has ceased, worked under, a contact of employment9.

Elizabeth A Slade QC MA (Oxon), Tolley’s Employment Handbook10 contends that

the difference between an employee and a self employed person is of great

importance11. The legal rights12 enjoyed by each differ in many ways for example

statutory employment protection rights13. The question is of whether a person is an

employee or self – employed is determined by reference to a contract under which

7
(1959)2 ALLER 285, 287 Para e
8
Michael Jefferson, Principles of employment law, 2000, Cavendish Publishing Company Limited, 4th
edition – page 55.
9
Halsbury’s laws of England –page 8 Para 2
10
2005, Lexis Nexis Butterworth, 19th Edition, page 292, Para 16.1 – 16.3.
11
Section 23 of the Employment Act, 2006 provides that a person shall not be employed under a
contract of service except in accordance with this Act
12
Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 as amended
13
See part 11 of the Employment Regulations SI No.1 of 219
he works, is it a contract of employment or a contract for services. The terms

contract of service and contract of employment are identical in meaning. The

former is the more archaic term which was used when the parties to the contract

were known as master and servant. The question of who is an employee has proved

to be a difficult and much litigated one, however, David Lewis and Malcolm

Sergeant, Employment Law, The Essentials14, in their book, writes that a contract

of employment is like any other contract in the sense that it is subject to the

general principles of law.

Professor S.C. Srivastava, Industrial Relations and Labour Laws15, citing the
Supreme Court decision in H.R. Adyanthaya16 noted that a person to be qualified to
be a workman must be doing the work which falls in any of the four categories viz
Manual, clerical, Supervisory or technical works.

High Collins, K.D. Ewing and another, Labour Law17, provides for other indicative

factors distinguishing a contract of employment from a contract for services.

Section 25, of the Employment Act18, provides that a contract of service, other than

a contract which is required by this or any other Act to be in writing may be made

orally and except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply equally to oral

and written contracts. A mere employee will owe express and implied contractual

14
2011, Chartered Institute of Personnel And Development, 18th edition, page 15
15
2004, Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd, 4th Edition, Page 247,
16
(1994)2 LLN 1017 (SC)
17
2012, Cambridge University Press, 1st edition page 194
18
2006 laws of Uganda
 19
duties under the contract of employment .

Smith and Wood, Industrial Law20, on the Importance of the distinction between

contract of service and contract for service by example independent contractor

may be in a better monetary position while working, but at a grave disadvantage if

it falls of a ladder or sacked21. where court of appeal stressed that where the

claim involved an issue of safety at work, the court or tribunal should lean towards

finding that the worker was an employee and the significance of the distinction

includes employees owing employers certain obligations which independent

contractors do not owe for example an implied duty arises to the effect that an

employee will serve his employers adopting a higher standard of care towards their

employees may not collorate to independent contractors who work for them22.

There is no single test for determining whether a person is an employee23, the test

that was used to be considered sufficient, was the control test24. But this proved

ineffective with employment of highly skilled individuals25. Conversely, a person

can be under a high degree of control but still be an independent contractor,

because of other factors26. The question whether the person was integrated into the

19
Paul Goulding QC, Employee competition, 2007, oxford university press, 1st edition, page 75, Para
2.297
20
6 Edition, 1996, P 9
21
Lave Vs. Shire Roofing Cc Oxford ) Ltd (1995) IRLR 493
22
Michael Jefferson, principles of employment law, page 57
23
Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd vs. MC Donald and Evans (1952) ITLR 101 at 111, CA per Denning
LJ,
24
Yewens vs. Noakes (1880) 6 QBD 530, Simmons vs. Health Laundry Co (1910) 1 KB 543, CA, Performing
rights society Ltd vs. Mitchell and Booker (palais de Danse) Ltd (1924),KB 762: Mersey Docks and
harbor board vs. Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd (1947) AC 1,(1946) 2 ALLER 345,HL,Clifford vs.
Unions of Democratic mine workers ( 1991) IRLR 518 CA
25
Cassidy vs. Ministry of Healthy (1951) 1 ALLER 574 CA (surgeon), Beloff vs. Pressdram Ltd (1973) 1
ALLER 241(journalist)
26
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd Vs Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) 1
Enterprise or remained apart from and independent of it has been suggested an
27 28
appropriate test . Modern approach has stricken are balance all those factors in

deciding on the overall classification of the individual Cooke J in29 held that the

extent and degree of control exercised by the company no other factors being

taken into account, were consistent with her being employed under a contract of

service may determine the employee status.

Thus a person who has been paying income tax as one employed person could later
be held by an industrial tribunal to have been in reality an employee30. Conversely,
the fact that the person was being paying income tax as an employee does not
necessarily mean that he will be classified as an employee for purpose of
employment law31. whether the individual may delegate work, who provides tools
and equipment and who, ultimately, bears the risk of less and the chance of profit32
and was later expressed in terms of whether the person in question was in business
on his own account33 and approved in34.

In some cases the nature of the work itself may be an important consideration for

example the minister of religion or religious leaders are unlikely held to be

employees because of the nature of his office. In The President Of The Methodist

Conference Vs Parfilt35 where the Court held, that although it was possible for a

person to be employed as a servant or as a independent contractor to carry out

duties which were exclusively spiritual, the duties owed by the appellant to the

ALLER 433, Construction Industry Training Board Vs Labor Force Ltd (1970) 3 ALLER 220
27
Stevenson Jordan and Harrison ltd vs. MC Donald and Evans (1952) ITLR 101, Bank Voor Handel en
scheepvart NV vs. Slatford (1952) 2 ALLER 956 CA.
28
Global Plant Ltd Vs Secretary Of State For Social Services (1972) QB 139
29
Market Investigations Ltd Vs Minister Of Social Security (1968) 3 ALLER 732,
30
Airfix Footwear Ltd Vs Cope (1978) ICR 1210
31
O’Kelly Vs Trust House Forte Plc (1984) QB 90
32
Montreal Vs Montreal Locomotive Works L Td (1947) ,DLR 161, PC
33
Moist Investigations Ltd Vs Minister Of Social security (1969) 2 QB 173 , (1968) 3 ALLER 732
34
Lee Ting Sang Vs Chung Chi-Keung (1990) 2 WLR 1173
35
(1984) QB 368, Davis Vs Presbyterian Church Of Wales (1986) 3 ALLER 705
Presbyterian church under its book of rules were not contractual or enforceable but

rather his duties were defined, and his activities dictated, by conscience.

Karokora, JSC, in Doreen Rugundu vs. International Law Institute36, Citing Vine vs.

National Dock Labour Board37, Jenkins LJ stated that; “it has long been well stated

that if a man employed under of contract of personal service is wrongfully

dismissed, he has no claim for remuneration due under the contract after

repudiation. His money claim is for damages for having been prevented from earning

his remuneration. His sole money claim is for damages and he must do everything he

reasonably can do mitigate them”.

The way in which the parties themselves treat the contract is not decisive. It may

be a factor for consideration, especially where other factors are evenly balanced38,

and a court or tribunal must consider categorization of the person of the person in

question objectively39. Thus a person could have been described as self employed

during the currency of the engagement but upon its termination claim to have been

in fact an employee for the purpose of claiming unfair dismissal.40 Employers

further are liable for the torts of their employees committed in the course of their

employment commonly known as the doctrine of vicarious liability, but rarely are

employers held responsible for the torts committed by independent contractors41.

36
S.C.C.A no. 8 of 2005, The Uganda Law reports, 2006 Law Development Center, Law Africa.
37
(1956) 1QB B 58
38
Young And Woods Ltd Vs West (1980) IRLR 201
39
Ferguson Vs John Dawson And Partners (Contractors) Ltd (1976) 3 ALLER 817
40
Massey Vs Crown Life Insurance Co (1978) 2 ALLER 576
41 41
Hillyer Vs Governors of St Bartholomew’s Hospital (1909) 2 KB 820
Henceforth, the issue of determining employment status has remained a hard nut to
crack due to the various contractual terms that parties have developed in such
contracts either impliedly or expressly. Interpretation of such contractual terms
has proved problematic since either party wants such interpretation to favor
his/her arguments, thus leading to escalation of employment disputes both
internally and externally that parties have ended up seeking courts indulgence.
However since direct interpretation and application of such contractual terms
would lead to an absurdity, courts have developed tests or mechanism to aid it in
defining an employer, employee and employment status that exists between both?
Since there is no single master test used to interpret such employment
relationship, modern approach has required application of all tests to select what
best suits the facts at hand since every case is determined according to its own
merits. The tests and/or mechanism developed by courts to expoderate such
relationships include the control test, integration (organizational) test, ordinary
person test, multiple test , independence test, economic test, indicia test,
pragmatic test as discussed in details below.

1. CONTROL TEST.

Bramwell LJ in Yewens vs. Noakes42 considered a servant as anyone who was

subject to command of their masters as to the manner in which he shall do his work.

Thus if the employers have control over what the workers does and how he does it,

such a worker is regarded as an employee. In contrast, independent contractors are

either directly or indirectly told what to do, but not how to do it. This test is

applicable in determining employee status of domestic servants for example maids,

due to the extent of degree and command that exists both.

42
(1880) 6 QBD 530
Control includes the power of deciding things to be done, way in which it shall be

done, means to be employed in doing it, time when and place where it shall be done.

Thus to determine where the rights resides, one must look first to the express

terms of the contract, and if they deal fully with the matter, one may look no

further. If the contract doesn’t expressly provide which party shall have what

rights, the question must be answered in the ordinary way by implication.

Judith Mooneeram and Bernadette Whittlers, Employment Law and Practice43,

contends that the main problem with the control test is that it was not developed

with the professional and skilled employee in mind. Unskilled workers clearly do

subject themselves to the control of the employers, not only in the choice of work

they do, but also in the way in which the work is carried out. In Collins Vs
44
Hertfordshire County Council using control test we can also determine whether

an employee can be liable for acts or omission done by his employee due to the

doctrine of vicarious liability.

In Sele And Another Vs. Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd And Another45, court

held that where a person delegates a task or duty to another not a servant, to do

something for his benefit, or for the joint benefit of himself and the other, whether

that person be called agent or independent contractor, the employer will be liable

for the negligence of that owner in performance of the task, duty or act. De Lestang,

V.P noted, a person employing another is not liable for that others collateral

negligence unless were the relation of master and servant exited.

43
2006, Oxford University Press, 6th edition page 236,
44
(1947) KB 598
45
(1968) Ex 123
Commentary: control is not by itself sufficient to show that there is a contract of
46
employment. court held in Could Vs. Minister Of National Insurance that although
the respondent was empowered under the contract to prohibit an objectionable
part of the appellant’s performance and to require him to produce a new “act” or
revive an old one, those and the other provisions of the contract and rules were
necessary for the proper working of the theatre, and the performance of the
appellant depended on his skill, personally and artistry with which the contract
gave the respondent no right to interfere, the contract, therefore, was one for
services and not of services.

In Mersey Docks and Habour Board Vs Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd47 the

HOL treated the right to control as a separate and substantive test. Court held

that the question of reliability was not to be determined by any agreement

between the general employers and the hires, many ingredients may be present in

the relationship of master and servant, it is undoubtedly true that the one

principle and almost determining one, is the fact of master’s right to direct the

servant not merely as to what is to be done but as to how is to be done.

Thus in conclusion; where the contract gives the employer extensive control over the
work to be done such is a contract of employment48. However what is always clear is
that, the greater the degree of control which is exercisable by the employer the
more likely it will be a contract of service and vice versa.

2. INTERGRATION / ORGANISATIONAL TEST

Simon Diakin, Gillian S Morris, Labour Law49, writes that an alternative to control

46
(1995) 1 ALLEL 368
47
(1946) 2 ALLER 345,
48
Lectures work, Mr. Senkumba, Page 4 Of Session 2
49
2012, Art Publishing Ltd, 6th edition, page 161, Para 3.27
rest which sees the essence of employment as the employee’s subjection to the

rules and procedures of an organization, rather than as subjection to personal

command is the integration test. The havoc in application of the control test led

judges to propose a more impressionistic approach called the integration test. Lord

Denning, L.J, in Stevenson Jordan Ltd vs. MC Donald & Evans50 held that “…..it

depends on whether the person is part and parcel of the organization. A person

under a contact of service does his work as an integral part of the business whereas

a person under a contract for services although he might do his work for the

business he/she is not integrated into it but is only an accessory to it”

In Gold Vs Essex County Council51, court Appeal held that a radiographer was a

servant of the of the hospital that employed him and thus rendered it vicariously

liable for his negligence in the course of his duty, even though the hospital

enumerations were not competent to dictate to him how he should exercise his

skills while in Cassidy Vs Ministry Of Health52, Lord Denning observed that the

liability of hospital authorities for the negligence of a doctor or the permanent

staff of the hospital does not depend on whether he is employed under a contract

of service or under on contract for service. It depends on who employs him. If the

patient himself selects and employs the doctors, the hospital authorities are not

liable for his negligence, but where the doctor, be a consultant or not is employed

and paid, not by the patient, but by the hospital authorities the hospital

authorities are liable for his negligence in treating the patient.

50
(1952) ITLR 101
51
(1942) 2 KB 293
52
(1951) 1 ALLER 574
Commentary: the application of integration or organization test, as plainly put by

the different legal Judgments, also bends some irregularities and/or ambiguities

that warrant clearing. It sometimes gives incorrect answers for instance home

workers such as knitters, may be an integral part of the organizations but many

are self employed, Lord Denning in Bank Voor Handel En Scheepvart Nv Vs

Slatford53 noted that the organizational / integration test adds nothing to the

control test. Determining who was part and parcel of the organization only can be

done by determining whether such workers were under the control of their

employers.

Thus in conclusion, despite the ambiguities, the organization/integration test has

always been utilized as an additional test to expoderate the employment status

In Davis Vs New England College of Arundel54court noted that whether one applies

the test control or whether the applicant was part of the organization of the

college, the answer is plainly the same while Whittaker Vs. Minister Of Pensions55

court concluded that “..She had no real independence and had to carry out her

contractual duties as an integral part of the business of the company”.

53
(1952) 2 ALLER 956
54
(1977) ICR 6
55
(1966) 3 ALLER 531
 3. THE MULTIPLE TESTS:

Lord Wright In Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd Vs Montreal56 postulated another

approach, but an important test in demystify the employment quagmire that

encompasses employment status. He contended that courts should with a juridical

eye consider, control, ownership of the tools, the chance of profit and risk of loss.

However judges should too aspire to the changing circumstances of each case, but

not to put a deaf ear to others changes apart from what he lays.

In a locus classiccus case of Ready Mixed Concrete (Southeast) Ltd Vs Minister Of

Pensions And National Insurance57 court held that to establish whether a contract

of service existed focus should be, where the employee agrees that in consideration

of a wage or remuneration he will provide his own skill in the performance of some

services for his employer, there must be some element of control excisable by the

employer and that the other terms of the contract must not be inconsistent with

the existence of a contract of employment.

McKenna, J, in58 observed that “the question of whether the relationship between
parties to a contract was that of a master and servant or otherwise, was a
conclusion of the law dependent on the rights conferred and the duties imposed by
the contract. Such a declaration might help in resolving the doubt and in fixing
them in the sense required to give effect to the expressed intention”.

56
(1947) IDLR 161 PC
57
(1968)2 QBD 497
58
supra
4. ORDINARY PERSON TEST:

The courts realized that that the tests already mentioned did not easily fit the

fact situations. Novel tests were adopted and one of these included the ordinary

person test. In Collins vs. Hertfordshire CC59 courts should ask, whether this was

contract a contract of service within the meaning which an ordinary person would

give to the words, however, the advancement of this test received a number of

criticism or drawbacks where the first question was who the ordinary person was?, if

it is the judge, the test does not help her. If it is someone else, how does the judge

know what the ordinary person will never have heard of a contract of service and

thirdly, it may be difficult for legal advisers to say, before a case is heard, whether

an individual is an employee or not. However, despite the pre-current criticism, this

test has continuously been applied to combat the differences that have arisen in

determining the employee status.

5. ECONOMIC REALITY TEST/ENTREPRENEURIAL TEST60.

The test considers that in addition to the degree of control, one should also

consider the opportunity of profits or loss, the degree to which the worker is

required to invest in the job by way of providing equipments or tools. In Market

Investigations Ltd vs. Minister of Social Security61 in the opinion of COOKE, J, he

59
(1947) KB 598
60
United States vs. Silk, 331 US 704 (1946) US supreme court.
61
(1968)3 ALLER 732
stated that the “fundamental test to be applied is this “is the person who has

engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business

on his own account?” If the answer is “no” the contracts is a contract of service,

however, he added that control should always be considered although it can no

longer be regarded as the sole determining factors”.

6. PRAGMATIC TEST:

The application of multiple tests in Ready Mix Concrete case62, led to

development of the pragmatic test were judge weighs up all the factors pointing

towards the existence of a contract of employment, and all the factors pointing

towards that of a contract for service. No one factor is determinative, except that,

if the worker need not perform the services personally, he is not an employee for

example, the fact that a company pays a person’s tax and national insurance does

not automatically mean that he is an employee63. Similarly, the fact that a firm

does not pay a worker’s tax and national insurance does not mean that he is

automatically an independent contractor64

However, there are no checklists of factors, tests call they whatever you may, to

determine the employment status, all factors or tests must be weighed in balance.

The court in Hall (inspector of taxes) vs. Lorimer65 court held that in deciding

whether contracts of service, there were and/or was no single path to a correct

decision: an approach which was appropriate to the facts and arguments of one case

62
(1968)2 QBD 497
63
O’Kelly Vs Trust House Forte Plc (1984) QB 90
64
Davis vs. New England College of Arundel(1977) ICR 6.
65
(1994) IRLR 171
might not be helpful in another. The question of whether the person was in business

of his own account, though often helpful in distinguishing between a contract of

service and a contract for service, might be of little assistance in the case of a

person carrying on a professional. Thus in deciding such cases, there is much to be

said bearing in mind the traditional distinction between a servant and an

independent contractor, what is significant is the extent to which the individual

was dependent on or independent of a particular paymaster for the financial

exploitation of his talents.

NOLAN, LJ66, citing Vinelott. J in Walls Vs Sinnett (Inspector Of Taxes)67 said; “it

is, in my judgment, impossible in a field where a very large number of factors have

to be weighed to gain any real assistance by looking at the factors of another case

and comparing them one by one to see what facts are common, what are different

and what particular weight was given by another tribunal. Factors which may be

compelling in one case in the light of the facts of that case may not be compelling

in the context of another case”.

7. INDEPENDENCE TEST/ MUTAUL OBLIGATION TEST:

A test formulated by COOKE, J, in Market Investigation Ltd Vs Minister of Social

Security68, to the effect that “is the person who has engaged himself to perform

those services performing them in business on his own account? If a person invest

money in his job, he is likely to be self employed. If a plumber works when he

66
Hall (inspector of taxes) vs. Lorimer(1994) IRLR 171
67
(1986) STC 236 at 245
68
(1968)3 ALLER 732
wishes, buys the tools and can send someone else in his place, the plumber is likely

to be self employed. If, however, the worker is provided with tools and materials, he

is likely to be an employee69.

This test was further applied in Young and Woods Vs West70, were the applicant

was a sheet metal worker. He was engaged as a self-employed person and the

Inland Revenue treated him as such. He was dismissed and claimed compensation

for unfair dismissal. The court of appeal did not accept the words of Lawton LJ

that he said in Massey vs. crown life insurance Company,71 that the parties cannot

change a status merely by putting a new label on it. But, if in all the circumstances

of the case, including the terms of the agreement, it is manifest that there was an

intention to change status, there is no reason why the parties should not be allowed

to make that change. The court held that the label was one factor which a court had

to take into account. It was decisive only when, all other factors having been

weighed there was still doubt as to the nature of the contract. The court thought

that, more weight should attached to a label, if there had been a deliberate change

in the relationship than otherwise, the situation which had occurred.

In recapitulation of the above averments citing, Cooke, J, in Market Investigations

Ltd Vs Minister of Social Security72, “The fundamental test to be applied is this “is

the person who has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as

person in business on his own account”. If the answer to that question is “yes”, then
69
Airfix Footwear Ltd vs. Cope (1978) ICR 120
70
(1980) IRLR 201
71
(1978) I WLR 676
72
(1968)3 ALLER 732 at 737 – 738
the contract is a contract for services. No exhaustive list has been compiled which

are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to

the relative weight which the various considerations should carry on particular

cases. Thus concluding that would be, but likely issue of determining employment

status, courts, in my judgment, must consider all tests developed. But free exercise

of their discretion should be unlimited to solve situations where the developed

tests have failed in order to solve the question of employment status that has not

only proved problematic in the past, but also in today’s employment relationships.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
A: LAWS OF UGANDA CITED.
1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 as amended
2. The Employment Act, 2006 Laws of Uganda.
3. The Companies Act, 2012 Laws of Uganda
4. The Employment Regulations SI No.1 of 219

B: LIST OF TEXT BOOKS USED:

1. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2014, West Publishing Company, 10TH
Edition.
2. Michael Jefferson, Principles of Employment Law, 2000, Cavendish Publishing
Limited, 4th Edition.
3. Paul Goulding QC, Employment Competition, 2007, Oxford University Press, 1st
Edition, Page 75 Para 2.297.
4. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Halsbury’s England, 1992, Butterworth and
Company (Publishers) Limited, 4th Edition.
 5. Elizabeth A Slade QC MA (Oxon), Tolley’s Employment Handbook, 2005, Lexis
th
Nexis Butterworth’s, 19 Edition.
6. Judith Mooneeram and Bernadette Whittlers, Employment Law and Practice,
th
2006, Oxford University Press Publishers, 6 Edition.
7. High Collins, K.D. Ewing and another, Labour Law, 2012, Cambridge University
Press, 1st Edition.
8. Simon Deakin, Gillian S. Morris, Labour Law, 2012, Hart Publishing Ltd, 6th
Edition.

C: LIST OF LAW REPORTS AND CASES CITED

1. J.D.M Silvester, Mrs. M. Rogers. The East Africa Law reports, 1968, London
Butterworth’s and Co Publishers Ltd.
2. The Uganda Law reports, 2006 Law Development Center, Law Africa.
3. Paul H. Niekirk, All England Law Reports, Butterworth and Company
(Publishers) Ltd.
4. Hall (inspector of taxes) vs. Lorimer (1994) IRLR 171
5. Walls Vs Sinnett (Inspector Of Taxes) (1986) STC 236 at 245

6. Market Investigations Ltd Vs Minister of Social Security(1968)3 ALLER 732 at

737 – 738

7. Carmichael and Another Vs National Power P/C(1999)4 ALLER 87, HL,

8. Young and Woods Vs West(1980) IRLR 201

9. Massey vs. Crown Life Insurance Company, (1978) I WLR 676

10. H.R. Adyanthaya(1994)2 LLN 1017 (SC)

11. Doreen Rugundu vs. International Law Institute S.C.C.A no. 8 of 2005

12. Vine vs. National Dock Labour Board(1956) 1QB B 58

13. Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd vs. MC Donald and Evans (1952) ITLR 101 at
111, CA
14. Yewens vs. Noakes (1880) 6 QBD 530,
15. Simmons vs. Health Laundry Co (1910) 1 KB 543, CA,
16. Performing rights society Ltd vs. Mitchell and Booker (palais de Danse) Ltd
(1924)KB 762:
17. Mersey Docks and harbor board vs. Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd (1947)
AC 1, (1946) 2 ALLER 345, HL,
18. Clifford vs. Unions of Democratic Mine Workers (1991) IRLR 518 CA
19. Cassidy vs. Ministry of Healthy (1951) 1 ALLER 574 CA (surgeon),
20. Beloff vs. Pressdram Ltd (1973) 1 ALLER 241(journalist)
21. Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd Vs Minister of Pensions and National
Insurance (1968) 1 ALLER 433,
22. Construction Industry Training Board Vs Labor Force Ltd (1970) 3 ALLER 220
 23. Bank Voor Handel En Scheepvart NV vs. Slatford (1952) 2 ALLER 956 CA.
24. Global Plant Ltd Vs Secretary of State for Social Services (1972) QB 139
25. Laws vs. London Chronicles (indicator Newspapers) Ltd (1959)2 ALLER 285, 287
26.Airfix Footwear Ltd Vs Cope (1978) ICR 1210
27. O’Kelly Vs Trust House Forte Plc (1984) QB 90
28. Montreal Vs Montreal Locomotive Works LTD (1947), DLR 161, PC
29. Lee Ting Sang Vs Chung Chi-Keung (1990) 2 WLR 1173
30. The President of the Methodist Conference Vs Parfilt (1984) QB 368
31. Ferguson Vs John Dawson and Partners (Contractors) Ltd (1976) 3 ALLER 817
32. Hillyer Vs Governors of St Bartholomew’s Hospital (1909) 2 KB 820
33. Collins Vs Hertfordshire County Council (1947) KB 598
34. Sele and Another Vs. Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and another (1968)
Ex 123
35. Could Vs. Minister of National Insurance (1995) 1 ALLEL 368
36. Lave Vs. Shire Roofing Cc Oxford) Ltd (1995) IRLR 493
37. Gold Vs Essex County Council (1942) 2 KB 293
38. Davis Vs New England College of Arundel (1977) ICR 6
39. Whittaker vs. Minister of Pensions (1966) 3 ALLER 531

D: OTHER LEGAL ARTICLES:

1. Lectures work, Mr. Ssenkumba, Page 4 of Session 2
2. Lectures work, Ass. Professor Shadat Ssemakula Mohamed