Wakilii

Iyamulemye v AG [2014] UGSC 9

Supreme Court · 2014 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal ruling on an application for review of an earlier Court of Appeal judgment
Decision
Appeal allowed; declaration granted that the appellant is entitled to pension and gratuity, with costs to the appellant

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 Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that the Court of Appeal wrongly distinguished Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire: the appellant, having served 19 years and 11 months and being only months from qualifying for pension when wrongfully dismissed, was entitled to pension and gratuity, and his entitlement was not speculative. The Court further held that the arithmetical miscalculation of special damages was an error apparent on the face of the record and that new evidence had been discovered, so grounds for review under section 82 existed. On costs, since the appellant succeeded on two of three reliefs, costs should have followed the event in his favour. A declaration of entitlement to terminal benefits and costs were granted.

Facts

On 16 July 1986 the appellant was recruited into the Public Service as a graduate teacher on permanent and pensionable terms, later being redeployed as an Education Officer. In January 1999 he was dismissed by the Public Service Commission, having served about 19 years and 11 months and being aged 45. His suit challenging the dismissal was dismissed by the High Court. On appeal (Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2006) the Court of Appeal held the dismissal unlawful and awarded him special damages (salary from interdiction to judgment), general damages of Shs.20,000,000, interest and costs. He then applied for review (Misc. Application No. 104 of 2010), seeking pension, salary increment and ten months' omitted salary. The Court of Appeal granted the salary increment and the omitted Shs.3,669,980 but refused pension, holding entitlement speculative, and ordered him to pay two-thirds of the costs. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant the appellant pension and gratuity following his wrongful dismissal from the Public Service.
  2. Whether the appellant's application disclosed grounds for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, namely an error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new evidence.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding the respondent two-thirds of the costs when the appellant had substantially succeeded in his application.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The appellant is granted a declaration that he is entitled to terminal benefits in the form of pension and gratuity, in accordance with the Constitution of Uganda and the Pensions Act.
  • The appellant is awarded costs in the Supreme Court and the courts below.

Key headnotes

Review — Inherent powers — Finality of judgments
A court's inherent power to recall and review its own judgment to attain the ends of justice does not extend to reversing its own decision; the principle of finality of judgments precludes a court from sitting in appeal over its own judgment.
Review — Error apparent on the face of the record
An evident arithmetical miscalculation of an award of special damages, requiring no extraneous matter to demonstrate its incorrectness, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record that satisfies the conditions for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Wrongful dismissal — Public service — Entitlement to pension and gratuity
A public officer who is wrongfully dismissed only a short period before qualifying for pension is entitled to pension and gratuity where his departure from service resulted from the employer's wrongdoing and not his own conduct, and such entitlement is not rendered speculative by the remaining period of service.
Costs — Costs follow the event
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise; a party who succeeds on two of three reliefs should ordinarily be awarded a corresponding share of the costs.
Wrongful dismissal — Measure of compensation
A person wrongfully dismissed is entitled to be compensated fully for the financial loss suffered, subject to the duty to mitigate that loss, with the emoluments that would have been received generally forming the basis of the calculation.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 241(1)
  • Pensions Act s.9
  • Pensions Act s.10
  • Pensions Act s.15
  • Pension Act (Amendment) Statute 1994 s.6(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVI rule 1
  • Court of Appeal Rules rule 2(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules rule 36
  • Court of Appeal Rules rule 43(1) and (2)
  • Uganda Public Service Standing Orders 2010 section (L-a)(3)(a)

Cases cited (8)

  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Livingstone M. Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1991)
  • Orient Bank v Fredrick Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2001)
  • Kakhamishi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja & Sons (1960) EA 313
  • Southern Highlands Tobacco v McQueen [1960] EA 490
  • East African Airways v Knight [1975] EA 165
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred Masaba & Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 87
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.