Wakilii

Eddy Muleme v Absa Bank (U) Ltd (Formerly Barclays Bank (U) Limited) [2026] UGIC 81

Industrial Court · 2026 Claim Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference to the Industrial Court from a labour officer, following an employee's complaint of unlawful and unfair dismissal
Decision
Reference succeeded in part: dismissal declared unfair and unlawful for procedural unfairness; statutory four weeks' pay and two months' pay in lieu of notice awarded; other terminal benefits and damages denied; staff loan relief and 9% interest on secured loan directed

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 dismissal must satisfy both substantive and procedural fairness. The bank proved a substantively fair reason: the employee admitted removing electrical sockets without authority, an offence expressly listed as dishonesty attracting dismissal in the disciplinary matrix, corroborated by unrebutted witness and CCTV evidence. However, the hearing was procedurally unfair because prior witness statements were withheld, rendering cross-examination ineffective, and the employee's chosen legal representative was confined to observing, contrary to Employment Act s.65. The dismissal was therefore declared unfair and unlawful, but because misconduct was established, remedies were limited to four weeks' statutory pay and outstanding payment in lieu of notice; other terminal benefits and damages were refused.

Outcome

Reference succeeded in part: dismissal declared unfair and unlawful for procedural unfairness; statutory four weeks' pay and two months' pay in lieu of notice awarded; other terminal benefits and damages denied; staff loan relief and 9% interest on secured loan directed

Facts

The Claimant, an IT professional, was employed by the Respondent bank from 2 July 2007 and was promoted to Data Centre and Networks Engineer in March 2018. During the bank's phased relocation from Hannington Road to Kampala Road, electrical sockets were removed from the Hannington Road premises and reused at Kampala Road, presented by the Claimant as a cost-saving measure that saved over UGX 44,000,000. On 20 June 2018 he was suspended on allegations of removing electrical installations without authorisation. He was invited on 25 June 2018 to a disciplinary hearing held on 28 June 2018, at which he was also charged with carrying out duties outside his role. He requested witness statements, CCTV footage and the attendance of three named officers; the witnesses attended and footage was made viewable, but written witness statements were refused as the process was internal, and his lawyer was restricted to observing fairness. He admitted removing 15–25 sockets without following the asset movement approval process. Project officers denied authorising the removal, and the Hannington lease did not permit it. He was dismissed on 23 July 2018 with one month's pay in lieu of notice; his appeal was rejected on 28 August 2018. His gross salary was UGX 4,747,500. He also had a staff housing loan and a secured equity release loan.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed.
  2. Whether the withholding of witness statements and the restriction of the role of the Claimant's chosen representative rendered the disciplinary hearing procedurally unfair.
  3. Whether the Respondent proved a valid and substantively fair reason for dismissal.
  4. What remedies, including terminal benefits and treatment of the Claimant's outstanding staff and secured loans, are available to the parties.

Orders

  • It is declared that although the Respondent had a valid and substantively justified reason for dismissing the Claimant, the dismissal was procedurally unfair and therefore unlawful.
  • The Claimant is awarded four weeks' pay of UGX 4,747,500 under Section 65(4) of the Employment Act for the procedural unfairness.
  • The Claimant is awarded two months' pay of UGX 9,495,000 under Section 57(3) of the Employment Act as additional payment in lieu of notice.
  • Any outstanding portion of the Claimant's staff housing loan shall be treated in accordance with the principles stated in the Award, and the Respondent shall not apply commercial interest rates to the secured loan; the applicable rate shall remain 9% per annum.
  • Claims for severance pay, compensatory orders, repatriation allowance, pension scheme interest, general and aggravated damages and interest are denied.
  • Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2023 is spent by reason of this Award and requires no separate determination.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Dismissal — Twin Requirements of Substantive and Procedural Fairness
A lawful dismissal requires both substantive and procedural fairness; where an employer establishes a valid reason but fails procedurally, the dismissal is unfair and unlawful notwithstanding proven misconduct.
Employment & Labour — Disciplinary Hearings — Withholding of Witness Statements and Right to Cross-Examine
Where an employer relies on live witness testimony to prove a disciplinary charge, withholding those witnesses' prior written statements deprives the employee of the tools necessary for effective cross-examination and renders the hearing procedurally unfair, even though disciplinary proceedings are not conducted as court proceedings.
Employment & Labour — Right to Representation — Person of Employee's Choice under Employment Act s.65
Section 65 of the Employment Act entitles an employee to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing by any person of their choice, including a lawyer, whose representations the employer must consider; restricting that representative to a silent observer role violates the statutory right to a fair hearing.
Employment & Labour — Substantive Fairness — Unauthorised Removal of Employer's Property as Dishonesty
Where an employer's sanctions matrix defines dishonesty to include the removal of material without authority, proof of unauthorised removal suffices without separate proof of dishonest intent, and such conduct breaches the trust and confidence fundamental to the employment relationship, justifying dismissal.
Employment & Labour — Proof of Misconduct — Effect of Admissions and Workplace Negligence
An employer need only justify misconduct on a balance of probabilities, and an employee's admission at a disciplinary hearing dispenses with the need to prove the infraction; workplace negligence is assessed against the employer's rules and the standard expected of a reasonable employee of comparable skill, and includes acting outside one's assigned scope of duty.
Damages & Quantum — Remedies for Procedurally Unfair Dismissal Where Misconduct Proved
Where a dismissal is substantively justified but procedurally flawed, remedies are limited to the statutory compensation for procedural unfairness under Employment Act s.65(4) and any shortfall in payment in lieu of notice under s.57(3); severance pay, compensatory orders, repatriation allowance and general damages will be refused because misconduct cannot be rewarded.
Banking & Finance — Staff Loans on Dismissal — Distinction between Salary-Based Loans and Secured Mortgages
Employee loans must be assessed individually on termination: unsecured salary-based staff loans may be relieved against an employer that unlawfully dismisses the employee, while secured loans remain the employee's liability but may not be repriced from the preferential staff rate to commercial rates upon dismissal.

Legislation cited (16)

  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.39
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.57(3)(d)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.65(1)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.65(2)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.65(4)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.67(1)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.67(2)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.68(3)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 s.69(3)
  • Employment Act Cap.226 Schedule 2 Item 3(6)
  • Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act Cap.227 s.8(3)(d)
  • Financial Institutions Act Cap.57
  • Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service, and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025 r.46(1) and (2)
  • Employment Act 2007 (Kenya) s.41(1)
  • Employment Relations Act 1999 (UK) s.10
  • ILO Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166) para.9

Cases cited (33)

  • [2001] UGCA 28
  • [2023] UGHCCD 170
  • [2019] UGCA 2088
  • DFCU Bank Limited v Donna Kamuli
  • Hilda Musinguzi v Stanbic Bank (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2016)
  • [2015] UGHCCD 15
  • [2025] UGIC 28
  • [2025] UGIC 72
  • [2024] UGIC 41
  • Kavuma v National Social Security Fund
  • [2021] UGHCCD 86
  • Dr. Etwop Patrick v Medical Teams International
  • [2020] UGCA 88
  • Billy Patrick Tumusiime and Others v Uganda National Bureau of Standards
  • [2019] UGIC 28
  • De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA & Others (2000) 21 ILJ 1051
  • [2023] ZALCPE 6
  • [1999] UGSC 22
  • Harmer v Cornelius [1858] (1843-60) All ER 624
  • Nalule Gloria v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited
  • Bwengye Herbert v Ecobank (U) Ltd
  • Nasuuna v Equity Bank (U) Ltd
  • [2024] UGIC 14
  • Ogwal v Kampala Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
  • [2023] UGIC 62
  • Kansiime Selgio Muhangi v Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Akullu Agnes Omara v Chairperson University Council Lira University and Another
  • [2023] UGCA 100
  • Mbiika v Centenary Bank
  • Ezra Balihamwe v Letshego Holdings Limited
  • Namakula v Scooby-Doo Daycare and Nursery School
  • Standard Chartered Bank v Grace Makoko
  • [2026] KEELRC 380

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Eddy Muleme v Absa Bank (U) Ltd (Formerly Barclays Bank (U) Limited) [2026] UGIC 81 (21 July 2026)
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.