Eng. Pascal R. Gakyaro v Civil Aviation Authoriy (Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2006)
Observed later treatment
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 of Appeal held that although the termination of the appellant's employment was unlawful and void for breach of natural justice, he was not entitled to general damages because his contract permitted termination with one month's notice or pay in lieu, and he had already received one month's salary. Damages for wrongful termination are limited to the notice period. The court upheld the award of UGX 11,966,626 unlawfully withheld, because the respondent had denied the appellant access to his office to retrieve accountability receipts. The claim for the value of other personal property failed for want of specific proof. Both the appeal and cross-appeal partially succeeded.
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal each partially succeeded; award of UGX 11,966,626 to the appellant upheld, but claim for general damages and value of other personal property denied.
Facts
The appellant was employed by the respondent from July 1992 as manager in charge of Engineering - Special Duties. In January 2003 he was arrested by security operatives on treason charges. He was suspended from duty pending police investigations without being given a chance to explain. He later sought permission to resume work, but the respondent confirmed the suspension and barred him from its offices, requiring him to surrender his Airport Entry Pass. In May 2004 his services were terminated without reason. In December 2004 the treason charges were withdrawn. The appellant sued for special and general damages for wrongful termination and for return of personal property, including cash, books and a laptop, detained in his former office. The High Court declared the termination unlawful and void, awarded UGX 11,966,626 wrongfully withheld, but declined general damages. Both parties appealed.
Issues
- Whether the appellant was entitled to general damages where his termination of services had been found to be unlawful and void.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to claim the value of his personal property left in his office at the respondent's premises.
- Whether the termination of the appellant's services was unlawful and void.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to the sum of UGX 11,966,626 wrongfully withheld by the respondent.
Orders
- Appeal partially succeeds.
- Cross-appeal succeeds on grounds 1 and 2 but fails on ground 3.
- Award of UGX 11,966,626 to the appellant upheld.
- Appellant entitled to two-thirds of the costs of the appeal.
- Cross-appellant entitled to two-thirds of the costs of the cross-appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
- Civil Aviation Authority (General Terms and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1992 Clause 31
- Civil Aviation Authority (General Terms and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1992 Clause 43
Cases cited (11)
- E. A Airways V Knight (1975) E A. 165
- Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2005)
- Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
- Githinji V Mumias Sugar Corporation Ltd EALR (1995-1998) 1 E A 68 (HCT)
- Ombaya V Gailey & Roberts (1974) EA 522 at 524
- Ridge V Baldwin & Others (1964) AC 40
- Mumira V National Insurance Corporation (1985) HCB
- Central Bank of Kenya V Nkabu EALR (2002) 1 EA. 34 (CAK)
- Githinji V Mumias Sugar Co. Ltd (1991) LLR 1373 (CAK)
- Kibimba Rice Co v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1988)
- Shamji V Bhatt (1965) E.A 789
Cases citing this judgment (3)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.