No Work Permit Required: The High Court Affirms the Refugees' Right to Work in Uganda

Introduction

Uganda hosts one of the largest refugee populations in Africa, with many recognised refugees living and working in urban areas. While Uganda's refugee laws grant recognised refugees the right to work, uncertainty has persisted over whether they must also obtain work permits under Uganda's immigration laws.

In Kasajja Brian v Attorney General and Inter-Aid Uganda, Miscellaneous Cause No. 0199 of 2019 [2026] UGHCCD 217 (Kinobe, Ag. J), 10 July 2026, the High Court settled the question: recognised refugees who hold a valid Refugee Identity Card are entitled to work in Uganda without obtaining a separate work permit. The Court also restrained the immigration authorities from arresting or prosecuting recognised refugees who work on valid Refugee Identity Cards.

Background and the claims

The application was brought in the public interest by a refugee rights defender, and on behalf of Mr Suther Rajesh Kumar and three others. Mr Kumar, an urban refugee married to a recognised Congolese refugee, was arrested in March 2016 for working while holding an Asylum Seeker's Certificate, and again in November 2017 despite having obtained a Refugee Identity Card. He was held under an immigration bond for nearly two years, with immigration demanding a surety holding a valid Indian passport and refusing to accept his wife as surety.

The applicants alleged violations of their constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, livelihood and equality. Although the Attorney General entered appearance, no response was filed. Inter-Aid Uganda was struck out because it had not been served.

The legal framework

• Article 40(2) of the Constitution guarantees every person in Uganda — not only citizens — the right to carry on any lawful occupation, trade or business, while Articles 8A and 45 protect the right to a livelihood.
• The Refugees Act, Cap 312 grants recognised refugees the right to access and engage in gainful employment under section 28(1)(e)(iv) and (vi). Section 36 extends a refugee's rights to family members, and section 38 bars proceedings against a refugee or family member for unlawful entry or presence.
• Article 17 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees requires the most favourable treatment of refugees in wage-earning employment.
• By contrast, sections 48 and 53 of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap 313 prohibit a non-citizen from remaining, or being employed, without a valid entry permit.

What the Court decided

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction under Article 50 and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, Cap 12, holding that any person may bring a human rights claim on another's behalf without showing a personal interest.

On the merits, several claims failed for lack of evidence — unlawful detention (no charge sheet or station register), discrimination (no proof of refusal of the wife as surety on nationality grounds) and torture (no medical evidence). The claim that succeeded was that, as the spouse of a recognised refugee, Mr Kumar's detention and prosecution for unlawful entry violated his rights as a family member.

The Court made several important declarations, including that:

a. the arrest of Mr Kumar infringed the rights of a family member of a recognised refugee under section 36 of the Refugees Act;

b. recognised refugees are entitled to work in Uganda without obtaining a separate work permit;

c. recognised refugees and asylum seekers are entitled to all fundamental rights except those reserved for citizens; and

d. a permanent injunction was issued restraining the immigration authorities from arresting or prosecuting recognised refugees who work on valid Refugee Identity Cards, unless there is reasonable suspicion of another offence.

One aspect leaves uncertainty: although the Court declared that asylum seekers enjoy all fundamental rights except those reserved for citizens, the statutory right to employment under the Refugees Act is expressly granted to recognised refugees, and the Refugees Regulations link access to employment to a valid Refugee Identity Card. The position of asylum seekers awaiting determination therefore remains less certain.

Refugees are not migrant workers

A recognised refugee employed under a contract of service is an employee under the Employment Act, Cap 226 (as amended in 2026), entitled to the same statutory protections as any other employee — wages, working hours, leave, termination and protection from discrimination.

Importantly, recognised refugees do not fall within the Act's definition of "migrant worker", which covers a person who migrates for the purpose of employment. Refugees enter Uganda to seek protection from persecution and are granted the right to work as an incident of their status. This matters because the 2026 amendments introduced restrictions specific to migrant workers, including ministerial powers to reserve certain occupations for Ugandan citizens — restrictions that do not apply to recognised refugees.

Practical implications

For employers, a recognised refugee holding a valid Refugee Identity Card may be employed without a work or entry permit. Employers should verify and retain copies of the Refugee Identity Card in employment records and continue to comply with non-discrimination obligations, including those relating to national extraction and social origin.

For recognised refugees, a valid Refugee Identity Card is sufficient authority to work, and protects against arrest or prosecution solely for working without a work permit. The case also underscores the importance of preserving evidence — charge sheets, police bond records, medical reports and official correspondence may prove decisive.

For public authorities, immigration enforcement must align with Uganda's refugee law framework. Administrative practices treating recognised refugees as ordinary migrants requiring permits should be reviewed.

Conclusion

The ruling narrows a long-standing gap between Uganda's refugee law and its enforcement in practice. For employers and their advisers it offers welcome clarity, and it reinforces that the migrant worker restrictions introduced by the Employment (Amendment) Act, 2026 are intended to regulate migrant workers, not recognised refugees. At the same time, the judgment is a reminder that enforcement of rights depends not only on the law, but on the quality of the evidence presented before the court.

Download the full alert PDF below for the complete analysis of the decision and its implications.

Prepared by TASLAF Advocates — Employment & Labour Practice.