The Industrial Court held that Napokoli’s termination was unfair and unlawful because the employer gave a reason without proving it or hearing him, and awarded general damages.
Uganda Air Cargo Corporation Limited v Moses Kirunda and Others (Civil Appeal 208 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 168 (9 May 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 208 of 2015
Judge
Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC, Musa Ssekaana, JA/JCC, Stella Alibateese, JA/JCC
The Court of Appeal found that the Attorney General entered into the consent judgment without express instructions or approval from the appellant's accounting officer, and failed to consult senior officials or obtain written authorization. The evidence showed that the State Attorney acted under a mistake and misapprehension of material facts, and misrepresented the approval of the Attorney General. The consent judgment included claims not attributable to the appellant and was not signed by the appellant's senior officials, violating court policy. The court held that grounds for setting aside…
The court found that while the Respondent had a legitimate basis to restructure following the NCHE report, it failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 80 of the Employment Act and Regulation 44 of the Employment Regulations. The Claimants were not given adequate notice or consulted about the restructuring and its direct impact on their employment, as required by law. Their contracts were renewed during the restructuring period, and their terminations occurred five months after the process had concluded, undermining the Respondent's claim that the terminations…
The application for execution was rendered moot because the respondent provided a valid and current bank guarantee in compliance with the court's previous order. As there was no longer a live controversy regarding the adequacy or validity of the security, the court found no legal question remaining for determination. Additionally, the issue of instructions to appeal had already been conclusively addressed in prior proceedings and was therefore res judicata. The application was dismissed as it had been overtaken by events, with no order as to costs.
The Industrial Court held that the bank’s termination was a disguised dismissal, finding the disciplinary process unfair and awarding damages, severance pay, service certificate, interest, and costs.
The Industrial Court held the claimant proved employment only from 2005 to 2006, not to 2021, and dismissed the claim for unlawful termination and unpaid wages.
The Industrial Court held that Paul Mutebe’s redesignation was lawful, but Joint Medical Store’s non-renewal of his contract breached its HR policy and was unfair.
The court found that while the disciplinary procedure was generally lawful, the respondent failed to substantiate the substantive grounds for dismissal. The respondent did not provide credible evidence of the claimant's alleged misconduct, deviation from movement plans, or insubordination. The investigation report and movement plans were not produced, and the allegations regarding breach of the code of conduct were unsubstantiated. The claimant's job description did not require transportation of implementing partners, and no evidence was presented to show he refused lawful orders. The court h…
The court found that the claimant was unlawfully terminated because the respondent failed to provide notice, a reason, or a hearing as required by the Employment Act and the employment contract. The purported summary dismissal was unsupported by evidence, as the respondent's witnesses did not appear to testify and their statements were expunged. The court held that the respondent's actions violated statutory requirements for termination and dismissal, rendering the termination unlawful. Consequently, the claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of notice, general damages, severance pay, and c…
The court found that the claimant was unlawfully terminated because the respondent failed to provide notice, payment in lieu of notice, or a valid reason for termination, and did not afford the claimant a hearing as required by law. The respondent's attempt to recharacterize the termination as a summary dismissal was unsupported by evidence, as their witnesses did not appear in court and their statements were expunged. The court applied the Employment Act and relevant case law, holding that the claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of notice, general damages, and severance pay. The court d…
