Wakilii

DFCU Bank Limited v Donna Kamuli (Civil Appeal 121 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 2088 · 2019 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from an award and orders of the Industrial Court in a labour dispute claim
Decision
Industrial Court award quashed and set aside save for the provident fund contribution of UGX 6,518,231; respondent to repay loan at its original rate

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 14 (treatment unverified) 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 allowed the bank's appeal. It held that aggravated damages, being compensatory in nature, were never pleaded by the employee and could not be awarded since a party cannot be granted relief not claimed in the pleadings. The court found the respondent had been accorded a fair hearing through the appraisal process under section 66 of the Employment Act, so the termination was lawful, removing the basis for general damages and salary arrears. A witness statement is evidence, not a pleading, so the relief of being relieved of loan obligations was unproved and unpleaded. The Industrial Court's awards were quashed save for the provident fund contribution; the respondent must repay the loan at the original rate.

Facts

The respondent was employed by the appellant bank as a Banking Officer from October 2011 and later promoted to Customer Services Officer in January 2013. Her appraisals were initially rated 'C' until she developed misunderstandings with a Line Manager, after which a moderation committee downgraded her to 'D'. She was placed under a Performance Improvement Plan and received monthly assessments, scoring 'C', 'B' and 'D' for July, August and September 2014. On 16 October 2014 she was terminated for non-performance. She held a salary loan from the appellant secured by her employment. She brought a labour dispute claim before the Industrial Court, which found her termination unlawful and awarded general damages, aggravated/punitive damages, salary arrears, severance, relief from the loan and the provident fund contribution. The bank appealed against the aggravated damages, salary arrears, the relief from loan obligations, and the alleged excessiveness of the awards.

Issues

  1. Whether the Industrial Court erred in awarding aggravated damages which were not pleaded.
  2. Whether the Industrial Court erred in awarding salary arrears from the date of termination to the date of the award.
  3. Whether the Industrial Court erred in relieving the respondent of her loan obligations when the relief was neither pleaded nor proved.
  4. Whether relieving the respondent of her loan obligations amounted to unjust enrichment.
  5. Whether the awards of general and aggravated damages were excessive.
  6. Whether the respondent was accorded a fair hearing before termination.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The judgment and orders of the Industrial Court are quashed and set aside, save for the seventh order on the provident fund contribution of 6,518,231/=.
  • The respondent shall pay back the loan at the rate attached to it but not the commercial interest rate.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Key headnotes

Pleadings — Relief Not Claimed — Court Cannot Grant Unpleaded Relief
A party cannot be granted relief which it has not claimed in the plaint or claim, and a court should not base its decision on an unpleaded matter unless the pleadings are amended.
Damages — Aggravated v Punitive — Distinction and Nature
Aggravated damages are compensatory in nature, enhanced because of the aggravating conduct of the defendant, whereas punitive or exemplary damages lie outside the field of compensation and are awarded to punish; the two are distinct and cannot be treated as one award.
Damages — Punitive Damages in Employment Disputes — Availability
Punitive damages may be awarded in employment disputes but only with restraint and in exceptional cases, since punishment ought as much as possible to be confined to criminal law and not the civil law of tort and contract.
Evidence — Witness Statement Not a Pleading
A witness statement is not a pleading but evidence in proof of matters pleaded; where a relief is not pleaded, no evidence can be led to prove it even if raised in a witness statement.
Termination — Fair Hearing — Section 66 Employment Act
The hearing required under section 66 of the Employment Act does not require an employer to hold a mini-court; a hearing may be conducted through correspondences or face to face, and a performance appraisal process involving feedback and discussion can satisfy the requirement.
General Damages — Appellate Interference with Quantum
An appellate court will interfere with an award of general damages only where the trial court acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount was so extremely high or so very small as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Employment Act 2006 s.66
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2(p)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 132(4)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (23)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012)
  • Ms Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Limited (SCCA No. 6 of 2013)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanywere (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Stephen Mutinda Mule (Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2013)
  • D.K Njagi Marete v Teachers Service Commission (Industrial Court Cause No. 379 of 2009)
  • Twinomugisha Moses v Rift Valley Railways (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 212 of 2009)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car & General Ltd (SCCA No. 12 of 1992)
  • Okello Nymlord v Rift Valley Railways (Civil Suit No. 195 of 2009)
  • Southern Highlands Tobacco Union Ltd V David Maqueen (1960) E.A 490
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Obongo Vs Kisumu Municipal Council (1971) EA 91
  • Attorney General v Paul Ssemogerere & Zachary Olum (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
  • Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
  • Hotel International Ltd v Administrator of the Estate of Robert Kavuma (SCA No. 37 of 1995)
  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd V Grand Imperial Hotel Ltd
  • Florence Mufumba v Uganda Development Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 138 of 2014)
  • Isaiah Gitiku Gikumu V Menengai Oil Refineries Ltd Cause No.296 of 2014 (Kenya High Court)
  • Storms V Hutchinson (1905) AC 515
  • Uganda Commercial Bank V Deo Kigozi (2002) 1 EA 305
  • Patel V Samaj and Another (1941) 11 EACA 1
  • Flint V Lovell (1935) 1 KB 360
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.