Wakilii

Ssenuni Mohamed and Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal No. 262 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 297 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from an award of the Industrial Court dismissing a labour dispute claim
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the award of the Industrial Court in favour of the respondent 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 dismissed the appeal. The appellants, engaged on fixed-term 'Vocational Employment Offers' of 3 to 6 months that expressly excluded terminal benefits, were not in continuous employment under s.83 of the Employment Act and were entitled to neither gratuity nor pension. Applying the doctrine of freedom of contract, the court held that a term excluding terminal benefits is not void under s.4(a) (now s.3(a)) of the Act because it does not operate to the employee's detriment. The fixed-term contracts terminated automatically on expiry under s.65(1)(b), requiring no notice or fair hearing. The appellants adduced no evidence of continued service after expiry, of unlawful termination, of discrimination, or of an extended probation.

Facts

The appellants were hired by Kampala City Council (KCC) as Law Enforcement Assistants enforcing law and order within Kampala. Between 2005 and 2007 they were individually issued fixed-term 'Vocational Employment Offers' of 3 to 6 months, each paying a flat monthly rate and expressly stating that no terminal benefits were payable at the end of the employment period. The contracts were neither renewed nor extended. In 2010, by Act of Parliament, Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) took over KCC's duties, mandate and liabilities. The appellants claimed they continued working on the same terms until 15 February 2012, when their services were terminated without notice or terminal benefits. They sought declarations that, by reason of continuous employment, they were permanent or pensionable employees who had been unlawfully terminated, and claimed gratuity, pension arrears, general damages and costs. The respondent contended the appellants were temporary employees engaged for specific tasks whose services ended on completion of the tasks without any need for notice or payment of benefits. The Industrial Court found in favour of the respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants' fixed-term 'Vocational Employment Offers' amounted to continuous employment entitling them to terminal benefits.
  2. Whether the contracts excluding terminal benefits were void under s.4(a) of the Employment Act as operating to the employees' detriment.
  3. Whether the appellants' employment was unlawfully terminated without notice.
  4. Whether the appellants were entitled to pension and other terminal benefits.
  5. Whether the appellants' exclusion from regularisation amounted to unlawful discrimination or a violation of the right to equal treatment.
  6. Whether there was an illegal extension of the appellants' probationary period.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Continuous Employment — Successive Fixed-Term Contracts
A series of fixed-term contracts that are neither renewed nor extended on expiry does not constitute continuous service under section 83 of the Employment Act, and the employee bears the burden of proving uninterrupted service with the same employer.
Contract Law — Freedom of Contract — Exclusion of Terminal Benefits
A term of a contract of service that excludes terminal benefits is not void under section 4(a) (now section 3(a)) of the Employment Act, because it does not limit the operation of the Act to the detriment of the employee; parties who freely enter such contracts are bound by their terms.
Employment & Labour — Termination — Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract
Where a contract of service is for a fixed term, it is deemed terminated on expiry of the specified term under section 65(1)(b) (now section 64(1)(b)) of the Employment Act, and provisions requiring notice and a fair hearing do not apply.
Employment & Labour — Pension — Pensionable Service
An employee engaged on temporary fixed-term contracts that do not state the service is pensionable does not hold a pensionable office and is not entitled to pension; pensionable service requires holding a pensionable office in government service for ten years or more.
Human Rights — Equality and Non-Discrimination — Free Choice of Employment
Employees who freely accept employment on particular terms cannot claim unlawful discrimination by comparing themselves to workers engaged on different terms; prohibited discrimination under section 6 (now section 5) of the Employment Act and Article 21 of the Constitution concerns distinctions based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin, HIV status or disability.
Evidence — Burden and Standard of Proof — Civil Claims
A party asserting a legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts must prove those facts on a balance of probabilities under section 101 of the Evidence Act.

Legislation cited (21)

  • Employment Act 2006 s.4(a) [now s.3(a)]
  • Employment Act 2006 s.2
  • Employment Act 2006 s.6 [now s.5]
  • Employment Act 2006 s.58(3) & (5) [now s.57(3)]
  • Employment Act 2006 s.65(1)(a) [now s.64(1)(a)]
  • Employment Act 2006 s.65(1)(b) [now s.64(1)(b)]
  • Employment Act 2006 s.65(2)(b) [now s.64(2)(b)]
  • Employment Act 2006 s.67 [now s.66]
  • Employment Act 2006 s.83
  • Employment Act 2006 s.86
  • Evidence Act s.101
  • Contracts Act s.10(1) [now s.9(1)]
  • Pension Act s.2
  • Pension Act s.6(1)
  • Pension Act s.9(1)
  • Pension Act s.12(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I. No.13-10, Rule 30(1)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 21
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 40
  • Local Governments Act
  • Kampala Capital City Authority Act 2010

Cases cited (9)

  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Betty Tinkamanyire v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Lugazi Progressive School & Anor Vs Serunjogi & Anor [2001 -2005] HCB Vol.2 at p.122
  • Barclays Bank (U) Ltd v Godfrey Mubiru (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson [1875] LR 19 Eq 462
  • Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
  • Bubolo Fred v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit No. 84 of 2009)
  • Attorney General v Tumushabe John (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 429
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.