Bosa v Post Bank (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 79 of 2018)
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 a labour officer may refer a claim for damages to the Industrial Court where the officer believes the dismissed employee deserves more than the compensation prescribed under section 78 of the Employment Act. The claimant, who was unlawfully terminated after 9 years and 10 months of service, was awarded general damages of UGX 35,000,000 with interest at 15% per annum. Claims for aggravated and exemplary damages were denied for lack of proof. No order as to costs was made.
Outcome
Claim partially succeeded. Claimant awarded general damages of UGX 35,000,000 with interest at 15% per annum from date of award until payment in full. Aggravated and exemplary damages denied.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent bank for 9 years and 10 months. He was summoned to a disciplinary hearing on the same day he was interrogated about his relationship with his supervisor. He prepared his defence but the hearing did not take place. After almost 50 days, he was served with a termination notice. A labour officer found the termination unfair, unlawful, orchestrated and malicious, and awarded remedies under the Employment Act. The labour officer referred the claim for damages to the Industrial Court, stating he had no jurisdiction to award general damages. At the time of termination, the claimant was earning UGX 1,200,000 per month and was 36 years old. He had an outstanding loan with the respondent whose interest was increased after termination. He established a small business to mitigate his loss.
Issues
- Whether the reference for damages was properly before the Industrial Court.
- Whether the claimant was entitled to general damages against the respondent.
- Whether the claimant was entitled to aggravated damages against the respondent.
- Whether the claimant was entitled to costs of the labour dispute.
Orders
- The claimant is awarded general damages of UGX 35,000,000.
- Interest at 15% per annum is awarded from the date of the award until payment in full.
- No order as to costs is made.
- Claims for aggravated damages and exemplary damages are denied.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Employment Act 2006 s.13
- Employment Act 2006 s.70(3)(c)
- Employment Act 2006 s.78
- Employment Act 2006 s.93
- Employment Act 2006 s.93(3)
- Employment Act 2006 s.93(7)
- Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 s.5
- Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court Procedure) Rules 2012 reg.3
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(1)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
Cases cited (15)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
- Byarugaba Kairra v Africa Field Epidemiology Network (Labour Dispute Reference No. 131 of 2018)
- Rwabinumi v Bahimbisomwe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008)
- Kuteesa and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 54 of 2011)
- Netis Uganda v Walakira (Labour Dispute No. 22 of 2016)
- Kisseka v St Raphael of St Francis Hospital (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 019 of 2015)
- Action Aid Uganda v Tibekinga (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 028 of 2016)
- Robert Coussens vs Attorney general
- Uganda v Tinkamanyire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
- Barclay Bank of Uganda v Mubiru (Court of Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
- Vires v National Dock Labour Board [1958] 1 QB 658
- Stanbic Bank v Kakooza Mutale (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
- Obongo v Kisumu Council [1971] EA 96
- Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire (Court of Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
- Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 Others (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.