Amal v Equal Opportunities Commission (MC 233 OF 2016)

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.

Holding

Held that judicial review is not the appropriate remedy for wrongful dismissal from employment where an alternative remedy by ordinary suit exists. The applicant's complaint that she was not heard forms part of the evidence in a wrongful dismissal suit but does not give rise to a separate cause of action remediable by prerogative orders. The non-attendance at disciplinary proceedings and the final dismissal decision are closely interlinked and should be addressed through ordinary civil action. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant, Catherine Amal, was Secretary and Accounting Officer of the Equal Opportunities Commission. On 26 April 2016 she was suspended for alleged financial and human resource mismanagement. By letter dated 7 August 2016 she was invited to respond in writing to allegations and to appear before the Commission on 25 August 2016. She requested access to her office to retrieve documents necessary for her defence but this was declined. The applicant did not respond to the allegations in writing nor attend the meeting on 25 August 2016 despite follow-up telephone calls on 17 and 18 August 2016. The Commission terminated her contract on 25 August 2016 and paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. The applicant had previously challenged her suspension in MC 419 of 2016 and her application for temporary injunction was dismissed on 1 September 2016.

Issues

1. Whether this is a proper case for judicial review.
2. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondent for terminating the applicant was lawful.
3. What remedies are available.

Orders

• Application for judicial review dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Constitution of Uganda article 28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda article 42
• Constitution of Uganda article 44
• Judicature Act s.36
• Judicature Act s.38
• Equal Opportunities Act 2007
• Public Service Commission Regulations 2009

Cases cited (3)

• Khabusi Building Contractors Ltd and Two Others v PPDAA (MC 43 of 2014)
• Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 143
• Machacha Livingstone and Another v LDC (MC 93 of 2009)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• National Drug Authority and Another v Nakachwa Obiocha (Civil Appeal 286 of 2017; Civil Appeal No. 281 & 286 of 2017)
• National Drug Authority & Anor v Nakachwa (Civil Appeal No. 281 & 286 of 2017)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.