Wakilii

Musinguzi v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 5 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 78 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision upholding the High Court's dismissal of a suit for unlawful termination of employment
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the lawfulness of the appellant's termination upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's employment was lawfully terminated. Under the Employment Act 2006 the terms 'termination' and 'dismissal' are used interchangeably (s.68), and the employer's right to terminate on payment in lieu of notice cannot be fettered by the courts where the proper procedure is followed. Section 68(2) does not impose the high standard of proof required in a court trial; the employer need only have genuinely believed in a justifiable reason. The employer had accorded the appellant a disciplinary hearing and paid her entitlements. As a second appellate court, the Supreme Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below absent error of principle.

Facts

The appellant was employed by Uganda Commercial Bank in 1988, becoming an employee of the respondent bank when it acquired UCB, effective 1 January 2003. In March 2006 she was appointed service centre head at Bundibugyo. Following a robbery at the Bundibugyo Service Centre in November 2007, she was suspended pending investigation. A disciplinary committee found that she had left her branch without handing over to her junior and had allowed staff and cleaners to watch DSTV at weekends, compromising the bank's security. After a disciplinary hearing, the respondent terminated her employment with immediate effect on 10 March 2008 by a letter headed 'Termination'. She was subsequently paid approximately Shs 3,440,569 representing three months' pay in lieu of notice, outstanding leave and salary arrears. The appellant sued for damages for unlawful termination, contending she had been summarily dismissed for unproved gross negligence relating to a loss of over Shs 1.28 billion in the robbery.

Issues

  1. Whether the termination of the appellant's employment was unlawful and/or unfair.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court, properly re-evaluated the evidence on record before affirming the trial court's finding.
  3. Whether the employer was required to prove the reason for termination under section 68 of the Employment Act, and to what standard.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Employment Law — Termination and Dismissal — Statutory Meaning under the Employment Act 2006
Under the Employment Act 2006 the terms 'termination' and 'dismissal' are used interchangeably, as demonstrated by section 68; both denote the discharge of an employee at the employer's initiative, and a discharge for verifiable misconduct following a disciplinary process falls within both definitions.
Employment Law — Employer's Right to Terminate — Payment in Lieu of Notice
An employer's right to terminate a contract of service, whether by giving notice or by paying compensation in lieu of notice, cannot be fettered by the courts so long as the procedure for termination is followed; payment in lieu of notice made as a corrective measure cures a procedural shortfall even where made after the termination.
Employment Law — Proof of Reason for Termination — Standard under Section 68(2)
Section 68(2) of the Employment Act 2006 does not impose the high standard of proof required in a court trial; it suffices that the employer genuinely believed at the time of dismissal that the reasons existed and that those reasons caused the dismissal.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact
A second appellate court will interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below only where it is satisfied that those courts were wrong or applied wrong principles of law.
Civil Procedure — First Appeal — Duty to Re-appraise Evidence
The first appellate court's duty to re-appraise the evidence and reach its own conclusion is founded in common law; where the material facts were admitted and the issue does not turn on the demeanour or credibility of witnesses, the appellate court's express agreement with the trial court's reasoning is a matter of style and does not amount to a failure to re-evaluate the evidence.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Employment Act 2006 s.2
  • Employment Act 2006 s.65(1)(a)
  • Employment Act 2006 s.68
  • Employment Act 2006 s.69
  • Employment Act 2006 s.71
  • Employment Act 2006 s.61
  • Judicature Act (Cap 13) s.6
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30

Cases cited (6)

  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Coghlan v Cumberland (1898) 1 Ch 704
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Lees v Arthur Greaves Ltd (1974) ICR 501
  • Rex Vs Stewart Jefferies Parker Ginsberg Ltd 1988 I. R. L. R. 483 at p. 486
  • Harmer v Cornelius (1858) 5 CB (NS) 236
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.