The sexual harassment case filed by Samantha Mwesigye against Court of Appeal Judge Christopher Gashirabake is scheduled for mention on October 29, 2026, nearly seven years after the dispute was first reported to labour authorities.
Mwesigye disclosed the development on Thursday, October 15 via X (formerly Twitter), expressing concern that the proceedings could face further delays and that the substantive dispute might not be heard before Gashirabake retires.
“My sexual harassment case against Gashirabake is up for mention in the CoA on 29th October 2026! I am informed nothing will come of this as he continues to abuse his office by influencing that it be set 2 years later in the hopes that he will have retired when its heard!” Mwesigye said.
She also criticised the handling of efforts to settle the dispute and accused the Judiciary of protecting the judge and questioned the requirement to forgive him before a settlement could be pursued.
“As the Judiciary plays accomplice in protecting him in his continued abuse, the Ministry of Justice, while desirous of settling requires me to first forgive Gashirabake. You all play too much!” she said.
The dispute dates back to 2019, when Mwesigye lodged a labour complaint against Gashirabake, who was then serving as Deputy Solicitor General at the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. The complaint was subsequently referred to the Industrial Court under Labour Dispute Reference No. 353 of 2019.
The case arose from allegations of sexual harassment and workplace-related misconduct. Gashirabake has disputed the allegations and the matter has been subject to court proceedings.
In December 2022, Gashirabake filed a notice of appeal challenging proceedings connected to the dispute. The matter later came before the Court of Appeal as Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2023, with Gashirabake listed as the appellant and Mwesigye as the respondent.
The appeal has been a major point of contention, with Mwesigye’s lawyers arguing that the proceedings have delayed the determination of the original labour dispute.
In a letter dated December 5, 2023, Bluebell Legal Advocates, acting for Mwesigye, petitioned the Deputy Chief Justice, who heads the Court of Appeal, through the Deputy Registrar, seeking to have the appeal fixed for hearing.
The lawyers said Gashirabake had filed a notice of appeal on December 21, 2022, followed by the memorandum and record of appeal on April 12, 2023, but had allegedly taken no further steps to have the appeal heard.
They also complained that attempts to secure hearing dates and directions had encountered difficulties on the court’s online filing system.
The lawyers argued that the delay was affecting the original proceedings at the Industrial Court, which they said had been stayed pending determination of the appeal.
“The Respondent has been frustrated by these delays and feels that she is being denied justice,” the lawyers stated in the letter.
They asked the Court of Appeal to intervene and have the appeal scheduled for hearing, saying the underlying labour dispute had been lodged in 2019 and referred to the Industrial Court on January 14, 2020, but had not been heard on its merits.
In a separate communication dated February 5, 2024, the Court of Appeal directed the parties to prepare conferencing notes and submissions outlining the facts of the appeal, the issues for determination, the legal authorities they intended to rely on and their legal arguments.
The appellant was directed to file scheduling notes by February 15, 2024, while the respondent was required to file hers by February 22, with any rejoinder due by February 27. The court scheduled an inter partes conferencing session for February 29, 2024, after which the outcome was to be forwarded to the head of the court for further directions aimed at expediting the appeal.
The October 29, 2026 mention comes amid Mwesigye’s concerns about the length of time the dispute has taken and whether the underlying allegations will eventually be heard and determined.
Her revelation also raises questions about the progress of the appeal and the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. However, the documents provided do not independently establish that the Judiciary has required her to forgive Gashirabake as a condition for settlement.
The specific purpose of the October 29 mention, the current status of the appeal and any directions the court may issue remain to be confirmed from the latest court record.
The case places further brings attention on the handling of workplace sexual harassment complaints, access to justice and the importance of timely resolution of disputes, particularly where proceedings have remained unresolved for several years.
