Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Kyeyune and 10 Others v National Medical Stores (Civil Suit 99 of 2008) [2024] UGHCCD 1 (5 January 2024)
The High Court held that National Medical Stores unlawfully terminated the plaintiffs’ employment and awarded special and general damages, plus costs and interest.
Lokhandwala v Hippo Industries Limited & 2 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 183 OF 2017) [2020] UGHCCD 194 (18 September 2020)
The court found that the Memorandum of Understanding was varied by the conduct and express agreement of the parties, as evidenced by salary vouchers, PAYE, and NSSF remittances, and the plaintiff's own admissions during cross-examination. The parole evidence rule does not bar evidence of variation where parties mutually agree, and Section 67 of the Contracts Act 2010 allows for such variation. The plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to salary arrears, NSSF, or PAYE benefits, as the evidence showed payments were made or agreed upon under the varied terms. Allegations of breach of contract by…
Source excerpt
Hass Scientific and Medical Supplies Limited v Komujuni (CIVIL SUIT NO. 363 OF 2014) [2020] UGHCCD 174 (10 June 2020)
The High Court found that the defendant donated company equipment without authority, amounting to conversion and breach of trust, and awarded damages, interest, and costs.
Kabaale v Chevron Uganda Limited & 2 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 4 OF 2009) [2020] UGHCCD 171 (13 March 2020)
The High Court dismissed most of an employee’s claims over expatriate assignment benefits after repatriation and termination, granting only verification of some allowances.
Emazumvi v National Curriculum Development Centre (Labour Dispute Claim 52 of 2014) [2017] UGIC 23 (2 November 2017)
The court found that the respondent’s council was properly constituted in accordance with the National Curriculum Development Centre Act, as ex-officio members could delegate representatives and the quorum was met. The validity of the council’s proceedings was not affected by the presence of delegates, and the claimant’s appointment had similarly been effected by a council with representatives. The court determined that the claimant was afforded a fair hearing, having been given opportunities to respond to allegations both in writing and orally before disciplinary and appointments committees.…
Source excerpt
Othieno v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Suit No. 107 of 2013) [2015] UGHCCD 24 (30 March 2015)
The High Court held that Florence Othieno’s retirement from Uganda Broadcasting Corporation was lawful and dismissed her claims for damages and employment-related relief.
Semwatika Kibirango v Makerere University (Civil Suit No. 198 of 2009) [2014] UGHCCD 845 (10 July 2014)
The court found that the retirement scheme upon which the plaintiff based his claim was an in-house arrangement by Makerere University, not established under the Pensions Act. The benefits under this scheme were payable at once upon retirement, and the cause of action accrued in 1996 when the plaintiff became entitled to payment. The Limitation Act applies to such contractual claims, requiring suit within six years. Since the plaintiff filed the suit in 2009, well beyond the limitation period, the claim is time barred. The court distinguished the cited authority on statutory pensions, holding…
Source excerpt
Milton Musinguzi v Diary Corporation (Civil Suit No. 259 of 2003 ) (Civil Suit No. 259 of 2003) [2005] UGHC 52 (8 December 2005)
The court found that the plaintiff was lawfully terminated after being given an opportunity to defend himself before the disciplinary committee. The termination was based on suspicion of misconduct, specifically presetting the milk meter, and the plaintiff was given three months' payment in lieu of notice as per the Standing Orders and the Employment Act. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under Standing Order No. 54, as he did not retire at age 60 or cease employment due to the repeal of the Dairy Industry Act. The only entitlements were those under Standing Order…
Source excerpt
