Wakilii

The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Pamela Sozi (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 191 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed (Partly Allowed on Interest) ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment finding unlawful termination of employment
Decision
Appeal substantially dismissed; partially allowed only on the timing and rate of interest on general damages; High Court awards otherwise upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 held that the termination, purportedly with notice but giving less notice than the contractual entitlement of three months, amounted to summary dismissal which was unjustified because no hearing was afforded. The appellant was estopped from re-characterising the termination as a summary dismissal for incompetence having pleaded termination with notice. The awards of gratuity, unpaid leave, a certificate of service, four weeks' net pay under s.66(4) and general damages of UGX 60,000,000 (about eight months' pay) were upheld as compensatory and not excessive. The appeal succeeded only partially: interest at 15% on general damages could not run from the date of filing as that head had not accrued; interest on that sum runs at 6% from judgment.

Facts

The respondent was employed by the Central Tender Board from 1 September 2001 as Head of Finance, continuing under the successor Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority following the PPDA Act 2003. In December 2011 she was directed to take outstanding leave (58 days) effective 7 December 2011 expiring 28 February 2012, amid performance concerns. While on leave, a termination letter dated 22 February 2012 was served on her house help, terminating her contract with effect from 28 February 2012 and offering two months' pay in lieu of notice. She had served over ten years, which under the Human Resource Manual clause 10.4 required at least three months' notice. No board meeting or disciplinary hearing addressed the alleged incompetence. She sued in HCCS No. 63 of 2012 for unfair dismissal and the trial judge found the termination unlawful, awarding payment in lieu of notice, gratuity, unpaid leave, four weeks' net pay, general damages, a refund and a certificate of service, with interest and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's termination of the respondent's employment was unlawful or unjustified and without sufficient notice.
  2. Whether the respondent's claims for gratuity and unpaid leave were speculative.
  3. Whether the award of UGX 60,000,000 as general damages was erroneous or manifestly excessive.
  4. Whether the respondent was entitled to be issued a certificate of service.
  5. Whether the respondent was entitled to four weeks' net pay under section 66(4) of the Employment Act.
  6. Whether the trial judge erred in awarding interest at 15% per annum and from the date of filing the suit.
  7. Whether the respondent was entitled to costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Ground 7 partially allowed to the extent that 15% interest on the UGX 60,000,000 general damages from the date of filing the suit to the date of judgment is disallowed.
  • Interest on the UGX 60,000,000 award to run at 6% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The rest of the appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Summary Termination — Inadequate Notice as Summary Dismissal under s.69 Employment Act
Where an employer terminates a contract of service with less notice than that to which the employee is entitled by statute or contract, the termination constitutes a summary termination under section 69(1) of the Employment Act and is unlawful unless justified by conduct fundamentally breaching the contract under section 69(3).
Employment & Labour — Fair Hearing — Termination on Grounds of Poor Performance
An employer who relies on incompetence or poor performance as a ground for dismissal must afford the employee a fair hearing in accordance with natural justice and section 66 of the Employment Act before dismissing.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Estoppel from Departing from Pleaded Defence
A party is bound by its pleadings and cannot, absent amendment, advance a defence inconsistent with them; an employer who pleaded and asserted termination with notice is estopped under section 114 of the Evidence Act from later asserting that the termination was a summary dismissal for cause.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages for Wrongful Dismissal — Restitutio in Integrum
General damages for wrongful dismissal are compensatory and assessed on the principle of restitutio in integrum, reflecting loss of income and amenities and the court's disapproval of the wrongful dismissal; an award equivalent to about eight months' pay is not excessive for a long-serving senior employee.
Employment & Labour — Statutory Remedies — Four Weeks' Net Pay under s.66(4)
Section 66(4) of the Employment Act applies to a summary or notice-less dismissal, and an employer who fails to comply with the notification and hearing requirements of section 66 is liable to pay the employee a sum equivalent to four weeks' net pay irrespective of whether the dismissal is otherwise justified.
Civil Procedure — Interest — Discretion under s.26(2) CPA and Accrual of Claim
Interest is awarded at the court's discretion under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act for the period the claimant was deprived of money due; interest on general damages cannot be awarded from the date of filing the suit because that head of claim has not yet accrued, and runs only from the date of judgment.

Legislation cited (27)

  • Employment Act 2006 s.59
  • Employment Act 2006 s.61
  • Employment Act 2006 s.65
  • Employment Act 2006 s.66(1)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.66(2)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.66(4)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.68(1)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.69(1)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.69(2)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.69(3)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.71
  • Employment Act 2006 s.71(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.42
  • Constitution of Uganda art.44
  • Evidence Act s.57
  • Evidence Act s.91
  • Evidence Act s.92
  • Evidence Act s.114
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(3)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 19
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 rule 4
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 rule 5
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.98
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I No.13-10 rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (23)

  • Stanbic Bank Ltd v Kiyemba Mutale (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Deogratius Asiimwe (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2018)
  • Bank of Uganda v Kibuuka and 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 281 of 2016)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Atuzarirwe v The Registration Services Bureau & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 249 of 2013)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Roko Construction Limited v Attorney General (HCCS No. 517 of 2005)
  • Ms Fang Min v Belex Tours & Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Jenkins v Bushby (1189) 1 Ch. 484
  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424
  • Watt v Thomas [1947] AC 484
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Johnson v Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
  • African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET) v Peter Wasswa Kityaba (Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2017)
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Mbogo & Another v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Devji v Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 89
  • Ali Muteza v Jessica Nakku Aganya & Another (Civil Appeal No. 271 of 2019)
  • American Express International Banking Ltd v Atul (1990-94) 1 EA 10
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.