Ejong Judith v Makerere Business Institute (Labour Dispute Reference No. 329 of 2017)
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 the employer's conduct in forcing the employee to take unpaid leave and refusing to reinstate her after the leave period constituted constructive dismissal under Section 64(1)(c) of the Employment Act. The claimant met both the contractual and reasonableness tests for constructive dismissal. The employer's allegation of abscondment failed because no formal disciplinary process was followed and the employer did not respond to labour officer notifications. The claimant was awarded salary in lieu of notice, severance pay, and general damages.
Outcome
Claimant's claim succeeded; employer ordered to pay notice, severance and general damages for constructive dismissal
Facts
The Claimant was employed as a security guard from February 2012. Following a theft incident involving telecom installations at the employer's premises in September 2017, the employer held meetings to address the vandalism. On 10 September 2017, the Claimant was told not to report for work and was subsequently forced to take two months' leave with only one month's pay. When the leave period ended, the employer refused to allow her to return to work. The Claimant's attempts to contact the employer's Director were unsuccessful. She lodged a labour complaint on 25 September 2017, but the employer did not respond to two notifications from the Labour Officer. The employer alleged the Claimant absconded after being asked to make a police statement, but did not report the incident to police or take any formal disciplinary action.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant was terminated, and if so, whether it was lawful?
- What remedies are available for the parties?
Orders
- It is declared that the Claimant was constructively dismissed from employment with the Respondent.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 500,000/= as notice pay.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 1,395,838/= as severance pay.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 2,500,000/= in general damages.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Employment Act Cap 226 s.2
- Employment Act Cap 226 s.12
- Employment Act Cap 226 s.57(1)(c)
- Employment Act Cap 226 s.64(1)(c)
- Employment Act Cap 226 s.65(1)(c)
- Employment Act Cap 226 s.70
- Employment Act Cap 226 s.86
- Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service, and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025 r.46(1)
- Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service, and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025 r.46(2)
Cases cited (17)
- Nyakabwa J Abwooli v Security (LDC 108/2014)
- George Wimpey Ltd v Cooper [1977] IRLR 205
- Achiro v Uganda Land Alliance [2024] UGIC 22
- Mary Muhumuza Banyenzaki v Entebbe Handling Services Ltd t/a National Aviation Services Ltd
- Lubega v Tropical Bank Limited [2024] UGIC 39
- Edotun v Okra Beverages Limited [2023] UGIC 48
- Susan Njeri Warui v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2022] eKLR
- Coca-Cola East & Central Africa v Maria Kagai Ligaga [2015] eKLR
- Munduga v Board of Governors of St. Daniel Comboni College, Kasaala and Others [2024] UGIC 68
- Ruthra Agaba Kamukama v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Labour Dispute Reference No. 163 of 2021)
- Moses Kiplagat Changwony v Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority (Industrial Cause No. 785 of 2010)
- Greatlakes Trans [K] Limited v Mohammed [2025] KEELRC 1166 (KLR)
- Chemcem Scotland v Ure (UKEAT/0036/19/SS)
- Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank Ltd (LDC 002 of 2015)
- Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Constant Okou (Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2020)
- Uganda Post Limited v Mukadisi [2023] UGSC 58
- Storms v Hutchinson [1950] AC 515
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.