Uganda Case Law

Doreen Rugundu v International Law Institute

Doreen Rugundu v International Law Institute [2006] UGSC 18 (3 October 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that the appellant had no accrued rights under the employment contract because she had not commenced work and the contract was terminated before its operationalisation. The respondent lawfully terminated the contract by giving more than the statutory minimum notice required under Section 24(1) of the Employment Act. The appellant was not entitled to salary or benefits under the contract, as she had not rendered any services. Her refusal to accept the respondent's offer of re-engagement constituted a failure to mitigate damages. The Court affirmed that only damages for a…

Source excerpt

• Anticipatory Breach
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Probationary Periods
• Termination Notice
• Mitigation Of Damages

International Law Institute v Rugundu

International Law Institute v Rugundu (Civil Appeal 56 of 2002) [2004] UGCA 38 (26 November 2004)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 56 of 2002

Judge

Okello, JA, Kitumba, JA, Byamugisha, JA

Court of Appeal held that the employer gave sufficient notice to terminate a fixed-term employment contract before it commenced, so the breach claim failed.

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Termination Notice
• Damages For Wrongful Dismissal
• Mitigation Of Damages
• Employment-contract-termination
• Notice-to-terminate

Ushillani v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Ushillani v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Civil Appeal 6 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 36 (24 February 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 6 of 1998

Judge

Mulenga, JSC, Oder, JSC, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to arrears of remuneration for the period she worked but was unpaid, as well as for the period she remained in employment without work due to the respondent's failure to terminate the contract or provide work. The contract's termination clause limited damages for breach to six months' salary in lieu of notice, but the statutory provisions of the Employment Decree 1975 required the employer to pay wages for the contract period unless the employee breached the contract or the contract was frustrated. The Court found that the respondent's co…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Remedies For Wrongful Dismissal
• Interpretation Of Employment Decree
• Damages Assessment
• Mitigation Of Damages

Gulaballi v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Limited

Gulaballi v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Limited [1999] UGSC 21 (24 February 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Judge

Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Oder, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mukasa-Kikonyogo, JSC

Uganda Supreme Court held that an employee was entitled to unpaid remuneration and limited contract damages under a notice clause, while rejecting mitigation without proof of alternative work.

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Wrongful Dismissal
• Damages Assessment
• Mitigation Of Damages
• Statutory Employment Protection
• Employment-contract-breach

Gulam v Yusuf

Gulam v Yusuf (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1945) [1946] EACA 6 (1 January 1946)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1945

Judge

Graham Paul CJ, Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ

The doctrine of frustration does not apply where the impossibility of performance is caused by the default of one of the parties, rather than by an external supervening event for which neither party is responsible. In this case, the appellant breached the contract by failing to deliver possession of the premises before the enactment of the frustrating legislation. The subsequent legislation cannot retroactively excuse the breach. The damages claimed by the respondent, being the difference in rent and loss of subletting income, are the direct and natural result of the breach and were within th…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Contract
• Frustration Of Contract
• Remoteness Of Damages
• Mitigation Of Damages

Virji v Gangji (C.A. No. 28/1936)

Virji v Gangji (C.A. No. 28/1936) [1936] EACA 144 (1 January 1936)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. No. 28/1936

Judge

Horne J

A malicious prosecution claim failed because the appellant did not prove lack of reasonable and probable cause; the appeal court also upheld exclusion of prior court records.

• Malicious Prosecution
• Reasonable And Probable Cause
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Mitigation Of Damages
• Malicious-prosecution
• Reasonable-and-probable-cause

Thawer v Clark (C.A. 6/1930.)

Thawer v Clark (C.A. 6/1930.) [1930] EACA 22 (1 January 1930)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 6/1930.

Judge

Griffin C.J. (Uganda),, Pickering, C.J. (Zanzibar), Thomas, J. (Kenya)

The Court of Appeal held that joint converters are liable from the moment property is unlawfully taken, and reduced damages for the converted motor car.

• Conversion
• Measure Of Damages
• Joint Liability
• Special Damages
• Mitigation Of Damages
• Damages