Wakilii

David Muwonge Ssalongo v The Attorney General (Cv. Cs. No.279 Of 2003) (Cv. Cs. No.279 of 2003)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 156 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of terminal benefits and general damages arising from privatization of state corporations
Decision
Plaintiff awarded terminal benefits with interest; claim for general damages refused

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 the plaintiff's suit disclosed a cause of action for terminal benefits against the Attorney General arising from privatization of state corporations where the plaintiff was employed. The Government's privatization policy under the Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act imposed a duty to compensate redundant employees. The court awarded terminal benefits of Shs.35,513,452/= with interest at 20% p.a. from 1 February 1995, but limited redundancy pay to 13 months rather than the claimed 47 months, holding that the plaintiff had a duty to mitigate loss by seeking alternative employment within a reasonable time.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded terminal benefits with interest; claim for general damages refused

Facts

The plaintiff was employed by United Garment Industry Limited from 1966 and later transferred to subsidiaries of the National Textiles Board, ultimately serving as Head of Marketing at Lebel (EA) Ltd. In March 1988 he was sent on indefinite leave pending absorption into Nyanza Textile Industries Limited, but this never occurred. Through Uganda's privatization process beginning in the late 1980s, the Government assumed responsibility for liabilities of these state corporations under the Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act. The Privatization Unit paid the plaintiff Shs.6,468,068/= in September 2002 without explanation, though his submitted claim totalled Shs.75,046,410/=. The plaintiff sued for the unpaid balance of his terminal benefits. Expert accounting evidence established the retrenchment package due, though the plaintiff claimed salary arrears for 47 months of redundancy from March 1988 to May 2002.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit discloses a cause of action.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim his terminal benefits from the defendant.
  3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay Ug.Shs.68,578,342/= as claimed by the plaintiff.
  4. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff for Shs.35,513,452/= terminal benefits.
  • Interest awarded at 20% per annum on Shs.35,513,452/= from 1 February 1995 until payment in full.
  • General damages for non-payment and non-use of money refused.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Essential Ingredients
For a cause of action to exist, three ingredients are essential: the plaintiff must have enjoyed a right, that right must have been violated, and the defendant must be the violator of the right. In determining whether a plaintiff has a cause of action, the court looks only at the pleadings.
Administrative Law — Privatization — Government Liability for Employees of Privatized Enterprises
Under the Public Enterprises Reform and Divesture Act Cap. 98, when the Government privatizes or liquidates state corporations, the Minister responsible for finance is enjoined to ensure provision is made for payment of compensation to employees made redundant as a result of the structuring or liquidation of the enterprise. The Government assumes responsibility for settlement of liabilities of privatized state corporations, including terminal benefits of employees.
Employment & Labour — Redundancy — Duty to Mitigate Loss
An employee made redundant has a duty to minimize loss by taking steps within a reasonable time to find alternative employment. Where an employee waits 47 months doing nothing about future employment, the court will award redundancy pay only for a reasonable period, being the time the employee ought reasonably to have spent waiting to see whether absorption would occur before seeking alternative employment elsewhere.
Contract Law — Payment — Part Payment of Liquidated Debt
Payment of a smaller sum is not satisfaction of a liquidated debt of greater amount when there is no consideration for giving up the remainder. Acceptance of a lesser sum does not, without more, discharge the debtor from liability for the balance of an admitted liquidated debt.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Award on Terminal Benefits
Where a party does not receive compensatory damages as at the date of dispossession, that party is entitled to interest on the monetary value at a rate within the court's discretion. Interest represents the profit the party might have made if they had use of the money or the loss suffered because of non-use. Where terminal benefits have been substantially delayed, the court may award interest at 20% per annum from the date when benefits ought to have been paid.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Relationship with Interest Award
Where a court has awarded interest to compensate for non-use of money, the plaintiff is not additionally entitled to general damages for non-payment and non-use of the same money. The award of interest satisfies the loss arising from delayed payment.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Annebrit Aslund v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 441 of 2004)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No.3) [1971] EA 514
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1990)
  • Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117
  • D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
  • Kimani v Attorney General [1969] EA 502
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] AC 390
  • Ruth Aliu & 136 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 1100 of 1998)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1996)
  • J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Muwonge Ssalongo v The Attorney General (Cv. Cs. No.279 Of 2003) (Cv. Cs. No.279 of 2003) [2009] UGHC 156 (27 October 2009)
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.