Alaba v Bank of Uganda (Labour Dispute 53 of 2017)
Observed later treatment
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 Industrial Court held that a dismissed employee who was a member of a non-contributory retirement benefits scheme remained entitled to benefits already accrued during her period of service. Rule 8 of the scheme's trust deed, properly construed, did not extinguish accrued benefits upon dismissal but only ceased further accrual. The employer's discretion under the rule to deal with accrued benefits as it deemed fit was exercised when it froze the benefits until the employee reached normal retirement age. The court awarded the claimant her accrued benefits for the period 1 May 1984 to 10 February 1994, plus general and exemplary damages.
Outcome
Claimant's claim succeeded; Respondent ordered to compute and pay accrued retirement benefits and damages
Facts
The Claimant was employed by the Bank of Uganda as a Banking Assistant from 7 July 1978 and enrolled in the bank's non-contributory Retirement Benefit Scheme on 1 May 1984. She was dismissed on 10 February 1994 for indiscipline. Her dismissal letter stated that her contributions to the scheme were frozen until she attained the normal retirement age of 55 years. Upon reaching that age in 2013, she requested her benefits. The Respondent refused, stating that Rule 8 of the scheme's trust deed excluded dismissed employees from any benefits and that the freezing statement in the dismissal letter was an error. The Claimant lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Labour, who referred the matter to the Industrial Court in March 2017.
Issues
- Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to any pension or retirement benefits from the Retirement Benefits Scheme operated by the Respondent?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- It is declared that the Claimant is entitled to already accrued benefits for the period of service starting 1st May 1984 to 10th July 1994 when she was dismissed from the service of the Respondent.
- The Respondent is directed to compute and pay the Claimant her already accrued benefits for her term of service and file a report of such payment with the Registrar of this Court within 90 days of this award.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of UGX 19,000,000/= in general damages.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of UGX 19,000,000/= in exemplary damages.
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant's costs of the claim.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (28)
- Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129
- Ibaga v Tarakpe (2018) UGHCLD 1
- Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] 3 All ER 865
- Wangayi v Mudukuti (2017) ZWBHC 155
- Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Uganda Crocs Limited [2005] UGSC 16
- Maynard v Moseley (1676) 3 Swan 651
- Uganda Railway Corporation v Kasolo Kiberu and 128 Others [2022] UGCA 167
- Mujibhai Madhvani & Co Ltd & Anor v Francis Mugarura & 35 Ors [2010] UGSC 21
- Mubende Parents School Limited v Uganda Development Bank Limited and 2 Others [2022] UGCommC 25
- Hughes v Metropolitan Railway [1874-80] All ER Rep 187
- Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire [2008] UGSC 21
- Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru [1999] UGSC 22
- Bank of Uganda v Kibuuka and Four Others [2021] UGCA 33
- Nsereko Joseph and Ors v Bank of Uganda [2003] UGSC 15
- Tumshabe v Normandy Company [2025] UGIC 14
- Kasozi v United Bank of Africa Uganda Limited [2025] UGIC 28
- Boley v Republic of Liberia and Others [2019] ECOWASCJ 24
- Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
- Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
- Uganda Post Limited v Mukadisi [2023] UGSC 58
- Obongi v Municipal Council of Kisumu Town [1971] EA 91
- Rookes and Barnard
- Nabatereqa v KCB Bank Uganda Limited [2024] UGIC 14
- DFCU Bank Limited v Donna Kamuli [2019] UGCA 2088
- Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH [2023] UGIC 89
- Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd [2008] ULR 690
- IBM Canada Limited v Waterman [2013] 3 SCR 985
- Sserunjogi v Safeboda (Labour Dispute Reference No. 47 of 2022) [2024] UGIC 31
Cases citing this judgment (3)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.