Wakilii

Bholim v Car & General (U) Ltd (CIVIL SUIT N0.500 OF 1994)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 40 · 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 with damages and interest awarded; 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

The court held that although the employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant was defective due to lack of signatures and non-compliance with the Employment Decree's requirements for written contracts with foreign nationals and work permit attestation, both parties recognised its existence. The defendant breached the contract by wrongfully dismissing the plaintiff before the two-year contract term expired, not for justifiable cause but to replace him with more qualified personnel. Special damages of USD 18,700 representing unpaid salary for the remaining contract period and general damages of UGX 30 million for wrongful dismissal were awarded.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and interest awarded; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff, a Kenyan national, was employed by the defendant on a two-year contract commencing June 1993 at a monthly salary of USD 1,100 with various benefits including housing, medical, transport, and club memberships. The contract was signed in Nairobi by the parent company Car & General Kenya Ltd and the plaintiff was posted to the Uganda branch. The plaintiff alleged that from the commencement of his employment, the defendant's agents denied him several contractual benefits including company car, telephone, utilities, club subscriptions, and work permit costs. He faced harassment from the defendant's resident manager. The defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment on 13 January 1994 citing irreconcilable differences with management and the need for more competent personnel, while the plaintiff was still on probation. The defendant counterclaimed for losses including damaged property and cleaning costs. The plaintiff never obtained a work permit during his employment.

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

  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff United States Dollars 18,700 being special damages.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff Shillings 30,000,000 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.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment Contracts — Foreign Nationals — Formal Requirements
A contract of employment with a foreign national must be in writing pursuant to section 13(1) of the Employment Decree 4 of 1975, and a contract for six months or more must be in writing under section 10 of the Decree.
Wrongful Dismissal — Justifiable Cause
A dismissal is wrongful if made without justifiable cause or reasonable notice, and at common law the breach of duty justifying dismissal must be a serious one; termination solely to replace an employee with more qualified personnel during probation does not constitute justifiable cause.
Breach of Contract — Damages — Measure of Damages
Where an employment contract is breached by wrongful termination, the plaintiff is entitled to be put in the same position as if the contract had been performed, including payment of salary for the unexpired period of the contract.
Special Damages — Burden of Proof
Special damages, apart from being specifically pleaded, must be strictly proved; failure to produce supporting evidence for claimed losses results in dismissal of the claim.

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)

  • Suubi v Mbale Municipal Council (1975) HCB 191
  • Eletu v Uganda Airlines Corporation (1984) HCB 39
  • Makula International v Nsubuga (1982) HCB 1
  • 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) Ltd (CIVIL SUIT N0.500 OF 1994) [1999] UGHC 40 (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.