Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v Mubiru (Civil Appeal 1 of 1998)
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 Supreme Court held that the respondent bank manager's summary dismissal was lawful: persistent breaches of his discretionary lending limits, despite repeated written warnings, amounted to gross incompetence, negligence and misconduct repudiating his employment contract, justifying dismissal without notice or a prior hearing under clause 13 of the service contract. The trial judge erred in finding the dismissal wrongful and in awarding salary and allowances to retirement age; the contract was terminable on one month's notice, and damages for wrongful dismissal are in any event limited to the notice period. However, the respondent's deferred pension had already vested and remained payable. Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment set aside save as to deferred pension.
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment and decree set aside except for the respondent's vested deferred pension, which remains payable; appellant awarded three-quarters of costs.
Facts
The respondent was employed by Barclays Bank International in 1969 and, after the bank was restructured as Barclays Bank of Uganda, rose through promotion to branch manager at Embassy House, Kampala, and later Deputy Staff Manager. His written service contract (clause 13) made him a monthly servant and reserved the bank's right to dismiss without notice for any breach of conditions or unsatisfactory conduct. As branch manager he repeatedly exceeded his discretionary lending limits and failed to report excesses, despite a series of warning letters from the managing director between January and May 1989 and an adverse 1989 inspection report. Over 40 accounts totalling some UGX 22 million were considered doubtful of recovery. On 31 May 1990 the board, finding negligence and gross incompetence, summarily dismissed him. He sued for wrongful dismissal; the High Court found in his favour and awarded salary and allowances to retirement age, later quantified on review at about UGX 53.8 million with 45% interest. The bank appealed.
Issues
- Whether the summary dismissal of the respondent by the appellant bank was wrongful.
- Whether the respondent's employment contract could not be terminated until he attained the age of 55 years or completed 30 years of service, whichever came earlier.
- Whether, if the dismissal was wrongful, the respondent was entitled only to payment in lieu of notice rather than his salary and allowances up to retirement age.
- Whether the respondent was entitled to pension dues that had not yet accrued.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part.
- Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside, save as regards the respondent's deferred pension.
- The respondent's vested deferred pension contributions to be paid to him.
- Appellant awarded three-quarters of the costs of the appeal, both in the Supreme Court and in the High Court.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (25)
- Harmer v Cornelius (1858) 5 C B (N.S) 236
- Rowlandson v National Westminster Bank Ltd (1978) 1 WLR 798
- National Bank Plc v Morgan (1985) A.C. 656
- Atkin v Acton (1830) 4 C & P 208
- Boston Deep Sea Fishing Co. v. Ansell (1888) 39 C.H.D 339
- Clouston & Co. V. Corry, (1906) A.C 122
- ...er v. Webb (1959) 1 WLR 514
- corse v. Durham C.C. (1971), 1 WLR 775
- Mumira v National Insurance Corporation (1985) HCB 110
- Steven u. R.T.U. (1977) I.C.R. 893 at p. 962
- Malloch v. Aberden Corporation (1971) 1 WLR 1578 at p. 1596
- Kavondo v The Cooperative Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 19 of 1993)
- Kifundu v The Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993)
- Lees v. Arthur Greaves Ltd. (1974) I C.R. 501
- Rex Stewart Jeffries Parker Ginsberg Ltd v. Parker (1988) I.R.L.R. 483 at p. 485
- British Guiana Credit Corporation v. Clement Hugh Da Silva (1955) 1 WLR 248 at pages 259-260
- Ridge v Baldwin and Others (1964) 40 (H.C.)
- B. Surinder Singh v. Government of the Federation of Malaya (1962) A 22
- Southern Highlands Tobacco Union Ltd. v. David Mc Queen (1960)
- Call v Brouncker (1831) 4 C & P 518n
- KONIG VS. KANJEE NARANJEE LTD 1968 E.A. 233
- Oluoch and Kania vs Nyandarua (1956) E.A 457
- Eletu vs. Uganda Airlines Corporation (1984) H.C.B. 39
- Jabi vs. Mbale Municipal Council (1975) H.C.B. 191
- BUGONDO VS. UGANDA COMMERCIAL BANK 1983 HCB 46
Cases citing this judgment (22)
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.
- Caltex (U) t a Chevron Uganda Limited v Ben Asiimwe and Another (Civil Appeal 64 of 2014)
- Steven Kiiza Kizimula v Luwalira Matayo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2025) followed
- Nuru Agriculture (U) Ltd v KCB Bank Uganda Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 311 of 2017)
- Makondere v Kyenjojo District Local Government (HCT-01-CV-MA-0012-2025)
- Natuwera Aaron Isingoma v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2024)
- Megha Industries Uganda Limited v Brood Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 1026 of 2020)
- Mwetex Zmukanka v Attorney General and Another (Labour Dispute Claim 20 of 2017)
- Ogwang and 99 Others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 138 of 2017)
- Ogwanga and 99 Others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 138 of 2016)
- Uganda Wildlife Authority v Kuluo and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2011) distinguished
- Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Asiimwe (Civil Appeal 18 of 2018)
- Uganda Development Bank v Mufumba (Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2015)
- Atuhura v Kinyara Sugar Works Ltd (Civil Suit No.7 of 2011)
- Ekemu v Stanbic Bank Uganda (Labour Dispute Claim 308 of 2014) followed
- Lam-Lagoro v Muni University (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE No. 0007 OF 2016) followed
- Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 6 of 2012) applied
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Katamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
- Stanbic Bank Ltd v Kiyemba Mutale [2011] UGSC 18
- Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire [2008] UGSC 21
- Ms Christine Saano v Action Aid Ug (Civil Suit No. 72 Of 2002) (Civil Suit No. 72 of 2002)
- Faustine Rugyera v World Vision International (U) (HCT-00-CV-500 OF 2007) followed
- Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru [1999] UGSC 22
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.