Wakilii

Bholim v Car & General (U) Limited (Civil Suit 500 of 1994)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 38 · 1999 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of employment contract and wrongful dismissal
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay special and general damages with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

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

Held that defendant wrongfully dismissed plaintiff before expiry of two-year employment contract. Dismissal during probation without justifiable cause constituted breach of contract. Plaintiff awarded special damages of USD 18,700 representing unpaid salary for remaining 17 months of contract period, plus general damages of UGX 30,000,000 for wrongful dismissal, harassment, embarrassment, and denial of contractual benefits. Interest awarded at 45% per annum on decretal sum from judgment date until full payment. Defendant's counterclaim for property loss dismissed for failure to prove special damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay special and general damages with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Facts

Plaintiff, a Kenyan national, was employed by defendant under a two-year contract commencing June 1993 at USD 1,100 per month with various benefits including housing, medical treatment, company car, telephone, security, education allowance, and air travel. During his employment, plaintiff alleged he was denied several contractual benefits including company car, telephone, utilities, club subscriptions, and faced harassment from management. Plaintiff's employment was terminated on 13 January 1994 during probation period, allegedly due to irreconcilable differences with management. Defendant filed counterclaim for loss of company property including wheel caps, cleaning costs, and lock replacement costs totalling UGX 1,754,200. Plaintiff worked without valid work permit from June to October 1993. The written employment contract tendered in evidence lacked signatures and missing fourth page, raising questions about enforceability under Employment Decree requiring written contracts for foreign nationals.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract of employment between the parties.
  2. Which were the terms of the contract of employment.
  3. Which of the parties was in breach of the contract.
  4. Whether the plaintiff owes the defendant any money and vice versa.
  5. What general and special damages are due to either party.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff United States Dollars 18,700 (eighteen thousand seven hundred) being special damages.
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff Uganda Shillings 30,000,000 (thirty million) being general damages.
  • Interest on the decretal sum at 45% per annum from 17th March 1999 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment Contracts with Foreign Nationals — Formal Requirements — Written Contract and Work Permit
A contract of employment with a foreign national must be in writing and the foreign national must hold a valid work permit as required by sections 10 and 13(1) of the Employment Decree 4 of 1975; failure to comply with these requirements renders the contract illegal and unenforceable, though where the employer recognises and acts upon such contract, it may be estopped from denying its existence.
Wrongful Dismissal — Dismissal During Probation — Need for Justifiable Cause
A dismissal is wrongful if made without justifiable cause or reasonable notice even during a probationary period; to justify dismissal, the breach of duty by the employee must be serious, and dismissal motivated by desire to replace the employee with more qualified personnel rather than for misconduct constitutes breach of the employment contract.
Breach of Employment Contract — Special Damages — Measure of Loss
Where an employee is wrongfully dismissed before expiry of a fixed-term contract, the employee is entitled to be put in the same position as if the contract had been performed and may recover as special damages the salary for the unexpired portion of the contract period.
Wrongful Dismissal — General Damages — Harassment and Denial of Benefits
General damages for wrongful dismissal may include compensation for harassment, embarrassment, and denial of contractual benefits during employment, assessed taking into account inflation and all circumstances of the case.
Special Damages — Burden and Standard of Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a party claiming special damages who fails to adduce evidence in support of specific items claimed will not be awarded those items.
Illegal Contracts — Courts Cannot Sanction Illegality
Courts of law cannot sanction that which is illegal; where a contract suffers from illegalities, enforcement becomes problematic though a party who has acted upon such contract in good faith may have remedies where the other party recognised and benefited from the arrangement.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Employment Decree 4 of 1975 s.13(1)
  • Employment Decree 4 of 1975 s.14(2)
  • Employment Decree 4 of 1975 s.10

Cases cited (8)

  • Makula International v Nsubuga and Another (1982 HCB 1)
  • Suubi v Mbale Municipal Council (1975 HCB 191)
  • Eletu v Uganda Airlines Corporation (1984 HCB 39)
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration (1982 HCB 44)
  • Ssali v Eesigye (1978 HCB 188)
  • Hassan v Hunt (1964 EA 201)
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye (1972 EA 446)
  • Kasule v Makerere University (1985 HCB 376)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bholim v Car & General (U) Limited (Civil Suit 500 of 1994) [1999] UGHC 38 (17 March 1999)
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.