Hans Mwesigwa and Another v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002)

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.

Holding

The appellants were employees of a public enterprise listed for privatisation under the PERD Statute. Their Staff Manual entitled them to severance pay only where termination was abnormally caused, that is, not by the employee or the company itself. The Supreme Court held that the Government, acting through the PERD Executive Director, had ordered the company's closure, leaving it with no jobs for the appellants; the Board's termination letter was a mere formality. The termination was therefore caused abnormally by Government, so the appellants qualified for severance pay. The appeal was allowed, the decisions of the lower courts set aside, and the respondent ordered to pay the severance allowances with costs in all courts.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; lower court decisions set aside and the respondent ordered to pay the appellants' severance allowances.

Facts

The appellants, Hans Mwesigwa and A. Tumwesigye, were the General Manager and Accounts Assistant of the respondent company, Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd. The company was a public enterprise listed under Schedule 1 of the Public Enterprises Reform & Divestiture Statute No. 9 of 1993, due to be privatised. On the request of the respondent's Board, the PERD committee decided that the company be temporarily closed before privatisation to safeguard its assets during restructuring. By a letter dated 12 May 1998, the Executive Director of PERD informed the company of Government's decision to close its offices. The Board then wrote to the appellants on 30 June 1998 terminating their services. The appellants were paid their terminal benefits but not the severance pay of one year's house allowance. Regulation 9(b) of Provision xvii of the respondent's Staff Manual provided for severance pay of one year's allowance where termination of employment was caused abnormally, that is, not by the employee or the company itself.

Issues

1. Whether the appellants were entitled to severance pay under the respondent's Staff Manual.
2. Whether the appellants' employment was terminated by the respondent company or by the Government.
3. Whether the respondent's Board of Directors had power to terminate the appellants' services.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal set aside.
• Respondent to pay the appellants their severance allowances.
• Costs to the appellants here and in the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Public Enterprises Reform & Divestiture Statute No. 9 of 1993 s.3
• Public Enterprises Reform & Divestiture Statute No. 9 of 1993 s.4
• Public Enterprises Reform & Divestiture Statute No. 9 of 1993 s.5
• Public Enterprises Reform & Divestiture Statute No. 9 of 1993 s.6
• Public Enterprises Reform & Divestiture Statute No. 9 of 1993 s.18

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Man Engineering Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority [2026] UGTAT 16

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