Wakilii

Avako v Uganda Midwives Union (Labour Dispute Reference No. 168 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 289 · 2022 Claim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from alleged wrongful dismissal
Decision
Claim dismissed — claimant found to have terminated her own employment by refusing to comply with lawful directive to reapply

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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 the claimant remained an employee of the respondent union even after the wellness centre was registered as a separate company, as no evidence showed transfer of employment. However, the court found that the claimant terminated her own employment by refusing to reapply for her position following lawful notice of restructuring due to donor funding withdrawal. The termination was not unlawful. Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Claim dismissed — claimant found to have terminated her own employment by refusing to comply with lawful directive to reapply

Facts

The claimant was employed as an Administrative Assistant at the respondent union's wellness centre project from 15 March 2011 under an open-ended contract. On 20 October 2016, the respondent held a staff meeting requiring all staff to reapply for their positions due to impending withdrawal of donor funding. A written reminder was issued on 2 November 2016 with a deadline of 4 November 2016. The claimant refused to reapply, contending that her open-ended contract did not require reapplication. On 20 December 2016, the respondent's General Secretary notified the claimant of non-renewal of her contract. The claimant claimed wrongful dismissal, unpaid salary differentials, and unremitted NSSF contributions.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant was employed by the Respondent?
  2. Whether the Claimant's contract was wrongfully or unlawfully terminated?
  3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Continuity of Employment — Transfer of Undertaking — Registration of Project as Separate Company
Where an employee is engaged by an employer to work on a project, and that project is subsequently registered as a separate company limited by guarantee, the employee remains staff of the original employer unless evidence shows that employment was transferred to the new entity in accordance with section 28 of the Employment Act 2006.
Employment & Labour — Termination — Restructuring — Employer's Prerogative
The requirements of any business are determined by the employer, who reserves the right to decide its nature, scope, number of employees, and their roles. Termination as a result of restructuring or reorganisation is lawful provided the employer follows correct procedure before effecting termination.
Employment & Labour — Termination — Restructuring — Notice Requirements
Before terminating employment as a result of restructuring, an employer must notify affected employees in good time and provide an opportunity for consultation on measures to avert or minimise terminations, in accordance with Article 13 of the Termination of Employment Convention No. 158 of 1992 and section 81 of the Employment Act 2006.
Employment & Labour — Employee Obligations — Duty to Obey Lawful Orders
Employees are expected to obey their employer's lawful orders or seek clarification where they are not sure. Where an employer lawfully directs all staff to reapply for positions following restructuring, an employee who refuses to comply cannot claim wrongful termination.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • ZTE Uganda Limited v Sseyiga Hermenegild & 6 Others (LDA No. 24 of 2019)
  • Dr. Elizabeth Kiwalabye v Mutesa 1 Royal University (LDR 005 of 2017)
  • Ngobi Hassan & 2 Others v Mayuge Sugar Works (LDR No. 233 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Avako v Uganda Midwives Union (Labour Dispute Reference No. 168 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 289 (20 October 2022)
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.