Wakilii

Egesa Noah v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 678 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 79 · 2021 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking declarations of constructive dismissal and damages for unlawful dismissal from employment
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for declaration of unlawful dismissal 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 the plaintiff was not unlawfully dismissed from the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces. Dismissal under the UPDF Act 2005 s.65 requires either sentence of a military court or action by the Chief of Defence Forces under prescribed circumstances. The plaintiff had not been formally dismissed but had absconded from duty. Desertion does not constitute constructive dismissal. Military personnel are excluded from the Employment Act and must follow due process for resignation, discharge, or release. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for declaration of unlawful dismissal dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff was employed by the UPDF as an army officer and was promoted through several ranks. In January 2004, he was arrested and detained for being absent without leave. He was later cleared by the Unit Disciplinary Committee and successfully sued at the Uganda Human Rights Commission. He was subsequently struck off the UPDF database and payroll. The plaintiff successfully sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mengo for non-payment of salary from January 2004 to May 2007. However, he never received salary payment from May 2007 onwards nor was he reinstated. The plaintiff alleged constructive dismissal. The defendant contended that the plaintiff willfully deserted the forces. Evidence showed that after being transferred to Chief Military Intelligence Headquarters as a Platoon Commander, the plaintiff never reported to his new unit. A Board of Inquiry found he refused to report and was absent without authority, leading to his removal from the payroll in June 2004.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the plaintiff was unlawfully dismissed from employment.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Military Employment — Dismissal from UPDF — Requirements under UPDF Act
Under the UPDF Act 2005 s.65, no officer or militant shall be dismissed from the Defence Forces except by sentence of a military court or by action of the Chief of Defence Forces under prescribed circumstances including conviction by a civil court or sentence by court martial with advice from the Board.
Employment & Labour — Constructive Dismissal — Military Personnel — Desertion Does Not Constitute Constructive Dismissal
Desertion from the armed forces by an officer who absconded from duty at his own volition and refused to report to his unit of deployment does not constitute constructive dismissal. An employee cannot claim constructive dismissal arising from his own prior material breaches of the contract of employment and army code of conduct.
Employment & Labour — Military Employment — Exclusion from Employment Act
Military personnel do not enjoy the same employment rights as other members of society under the Employment Act. Section 3(2)(b) of the Employment Act expressly excludes the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (other than civilian employees) from the Act's application.
Employment & Labour — Military Employment — Desertion and Employment Status
Desertion does not change an officer's employment status. An officer who deserts remains subject to military law within the meaning of ss.28, 118 and 119 of the UPDF Act 2005 until formally discharged, released, or resigned through due process.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Proof of Dismissal
Under the Evidence Act Cap. 6 s.101, a party who desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove their existence. A plaintiff alleging dismissal from employment must adduce evidence proving the dismissal occurred.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Senkali George and 4506 Others [2009] HCB Vol. 1
  • Stanbic Ltd v Kiyemba Mutale (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
  • Re Rubel and Metal Co. and Vis [1918] KB 315
  • Gen. David Sejusa -vs- Attorney General

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Egesa Noah v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 678 of 2016) [2021] UGHCCD 79 (24 June 2021)
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.