Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Katamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)

Court of Appeal · [2012] UGCA 3 · 2012 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal and cross-appeal from a High Court judicial review decision awarding damages for wrongful termination of employment
Decision
Compensatory and punitive damages set aside; aggravated damages of Shs.100,000,000/= substituted in favour of the respondent; cross-appeal dismissed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal. It held that where an employment contract is terminable on notice, damages for wrongful dismissal are confined to remuneration in lieu of notice, which the respondent had already received; the trial judge erred in using a 36-month multiplier and awarding Shs.208 million compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awardable in this contract case as a matter of principle, so the Shs.100 million punitive award was set aside. However, given the aggravating manipulation of his appraisal, the court substituted aggravated damages of Shs.100 million. The cross-appeal failed; interest was refused because it was never pleaded and unsupported by evidence in the judicial review proceedings.

Facts

The respondent began working for the Uganda Revenue Authority in August 1999 as a Senior Revenue Officer and by 2005 had risen to Regional Manager, Domestic Tax Department. His appointment letter of 19 April 2005 provided that employment could be terminated on two months' notice or two months' salary in lieu. On 31 October 2008 the appellant terminated his services with immediate effect for unsatisfactory performance. The respondent contended the termination was based on a wrong appraisal and brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court. The trial judge found the appellant's Departmental Appraisal Committee had fraudulently sent lower score points to the Board, wrongly placing the respondent in the incompetent performance group and causing his termination. The High Court awarded general damages of Shs.208,485,216/= computed on a 36-month multiplier, plus punitive damages of Shs.100,000,000/=. The Authority appealed against the awards and the respondent cross-appealed seeking damages based on 57 months until retirement and interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge was justified in awarding compensatory damages where the respondent had been paid two months' salary in lieu of notice.
  2. Whether the trial judge was justified in holding that the respondent was employed on a three year (36 months) contract.
  3. Whether the trial judge was justified in basing computation of damages on a multiplier of 36 months, and if not, the appropriate award.
  4. Whether the trial judge was justified in awarding punitive damages to the respondent.
  5. Whether the trial judge was justified in not awarding interest on the sums awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal partly succeeds.
  • Award of Shs.208,485,216/= compensatory damages set aside.
  • Award of Shs.100,000,000/= punitive damages set aside.
  • Respondent awarded Shs.100,000,000/= aggravated damages.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed; no interest awarded.
  • Respondent awarded one third of the costs of the appeal and of the court below.

Key headnotes

Wrongful Dismissal — Measure of Damages — Contract Terminable on Notice
Where a contract of employment provides for termination by notice or payment in lieu, an employee who is wrongfully dismissed is entitled to recover damages equivalent only to the remuneration for the stipulated notice period, not for the balance of the working life.
Wrongful Dismissal — Fixed-Term vs Terminable-on-Notice Contracts
A contract that makes no provision for termination before expiry entitles a wrongfully dismissed employee to remuneration for the balance of the contract period, whereas a contract terminable on notice limits damages to remuneration for the notice period; the measure of damages depends on which type of contract exists.
Punitive Damages — Availability in Breach of Contract
Punitive or exemplary damages are not awardable for breach of contract, including breach of an employment contract, as a matter of principle, except where a tort is committed in the course of or in relation to the breach, in which case the award relates to the tort and not the contract.
Aggravated Damages — Wrongful Dismissal with Aggravating Conduct
Aggravated damages, being compensatory but enhanced by reason of the defendant's aggravating conduct, may be awarded to a wrongfully dismissed employee where the dismissal was degrading, callous or achieved through manipulation, in addition to compensation in lieu of notice.
Interest — Requirement to Plead and Prove
A party claiming interest must specifically plead it and adduce evidence in support; interest raised only in submissions and not in the pleadings provides no basis for the court to exercise its discretion to award interest.
Scope — Not a Substitute for Ordinary Civil Suit
Judicial review is confined to the court's supervisory jurisdiction over judicial, quasi-judicial and public bodies in the area of administrative law and should not be used as a substitute for the ordinary commencement and prosecution of civil suits claiming damages and interest.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Civil Procedure (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Order XLVI A
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order VI rules 1-5
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order VII

Cases cited (19)

  • Gullabhai Ushillingi v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car and General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2001)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car and General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS TOBACCO UNION LIMITED V. DAVID MCQUEEN: [1960] EA 490
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • OBONGO VS KISUMU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [1971] EA 91
  • ADDIS V GRAMOPHONE CO [1909] A.C.488
  • MAW Vs JONES (1890) 25 QBD 107
  • DUNK VS GEORGE WALLER & SON [1970] 2QB 163(CA)
  • COX VS PHILIPS INDUSTRIES [1976] 1 WLR 638
  • Rigby Vs Ferodo [1987] I.R. L.R 61(CA)
  • ROOKES VS BARNARD (1964) A.C. 1129, 1 ALLER 367
  • CASSELL CO LTD VS BROOME (1972) 1 ALLER 801
  • AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LTD VS. UREN [1967] 3 ALLER 523
  • AGBETTOH VS GHANA COCOA MAKETING BOARD (1984-86) GLRD 16
  • Pius Niwagaba v Law Development Centre (Civil Application No. 18 of 2006)
  • Charles Lwanga v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1999)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.