David Kayondo v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1995] UGSC 3
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 Supreme Court held that bye-laws governing the appointment and removal of the Bank's Secretary formed part of his contract of service, even though his appointment letter did not refer to them. His termination was subject to the Registrar's approval and to a fair hearing; as neither was given, the termination was unlawful, and the Minister's belated purported ratification could not cure the illegality. The court declined to declare the contract still subsisting, since no employer can be compelled to retain an employee. However, the termination amounted to retirement under Standing Order 24, entitling the appellant to pension, gratuity and pay in lieu of notice. The appeal was allowed in part, with costs.
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; dismissal set aside; appellant awarded cash in lieu of two months' notice and pension and gratuity under Standing Order 24.
Facts
The appellant had been employed by the respondent Bank since 1987, was appointed acting Secretary on 1 March 1987 and confirmed in the post on 1 February 1988. In 1989 the Board of Directors embarked on restructuring and set up a task force. By letter of 18 August 1989 the Chairman directed the appellant to go on leave. On 16 October 1989 the Chairman wrote terminating the appellant's service "forthwith", with cash payment in lieu of notice. Neither the Board nor any other authority interviewed or heard the appellant before he was suspended and retired, and there was no adverse report against him. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the technical officer on the matter, disrecommended the course taken because proper procedure was not followed. The Bank deposited Shs. 2,110,717 as the appellant's terminal benefits, which he declined to collect. He sued for a declaration that he remained an employee and for payment of dues withheld since his dismissal.
Issues
- Whether the bye-laws of the respondent Bank formed part of the terms and conditions of the appellant's contract of service.
- Whether the letter of 16 October 1989 lawfully and effectively terminated the appellant's employment.
- Whether the court should declare that the appellant's contract of service was still subsisting.
- Whether the termination amounted to retirement under the Standing Orders and what relief, if any, the appellant was entitled to.
Orders
- Appeal allowed and the order dismissing the suit set aside.
- Respondent to pay the appellant cash in lieu of two months, in addition to the one month's pay already included in Shs. 2,110,717.
- Appellant to be paid pension according to the Standing Orders.
- Costs of the appeal and of the court below awarded to the appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Co-operative Societies Act 1970 s.73
- Co-operative Societies Act 1970 s.79
- Co-operative Societies Act 1970 s.85
- Co-operative Societies Act 1970 s.87
- Co-operative Societies Act 1970 s.89
- Co-operative Societies Act 1970 s.30
- Co-operative Societies Regulations 1971 reg.6
- Co-operative Societies Regulations 1971 reg.27
- Co-operative Societies Regulations 1971 reg.28
- Interpretation Act 1974 s.24
Cases cited (2)
- Eley Vs. D.C Sitivelife Assurance Co. (1876) 1 Ex. D 88
- Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep-Breeders' Association [1915] 1 Ch 881
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.