Kafumbe & 2 Others v Uganda Breweries Limited (Civil Appeal 115 of 2018)

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 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants' termination for redundancy was unlawful because the respondent's human resource manual (section 9.3.3) required abolition of office or responsibility, which had not occurred — the roles were merely enhanced. Under sections 68(1) and 71 of the Employment Act, an employer's failure to justify dismissal renders it unfair. A signed termination agreement could not bind the appellants where it was preceded by the employer's illegal act, since a court cannot sanction illegality (Makula International). The appellants' unpleaded vitiating factors (coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake) failed for want of pleading. Each appellant was awarded UGX 20,000,000 in general damages with interest and costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; appellants' dismissal declared unlawful; each appellant awarded UGX 20,000,000 in general damages with interest and costs

Facts

The appellants were employees of the respondent company in the sales department until 29 April 2014, when their positions were declared redundant and their employment terminated following a restructuring driven by the respondent's group owner, Diageo Plc. Prior to termination the appellants underwent an assessment comprising three sets of exams, and on the same day the exams began, their positions were advertised under different titles. The appellants signed termination letters accepting their terminal benefits and stating they had no further claims against the respondent. The respondent contended the restructuring was genuine and it could not fit the appellants into modified roles. The respondent's human resource manual (section 9.3.3) defined redundancy as arising where a job is declared superfluous by abolition of office or responsibility. The trial Labour and Industrial Court found the roles were not abolished but enhanced, yet held the appellants bound by the signed agreement absent proof of fraud or duress, and ruled for the respondent.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in determining the case on the basis of an agreement whose validity was not canvassed in evidence at trial.
2. Whether, by signing the termination letters, the appellants entered into an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings contrary to section 22(1) of the Contract Act.
3. Whether the termination of the appellants' employment was carried out lawfully as a genuine redundancy.
4. Whether the appellants were entitled to general damages, interest and costs.

Orders

• The lower court's judgment and orders be set aside.
• An award of UGX 20,000,000 to each appellant as general damages.
• Interest on the general damages at 10% per annum from the date of dismissal until satisfaction of the judgment.
• Costs of both the lower court and this court awarded to the appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Contract Act No. 7 of 2010 s.10(1)
• Contract Act No. 7 of 2010 s.13
• Contract Act No. 7 of 2010 s.22(1)
• Employment Act 2006 s.2
• Employment Act 2006 s.68(1)
• Employment Act 2006 s.71(1)
• Employment Act 2006 s.80
• Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act No. 8 of 2006 s.22
• Civil Procedure Act s.26
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 3
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.113-10 rule 102(a)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 44(c)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (17)

• Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
• Rwabinumi v Bahimbisibwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
• Attorney General v Ssemogerere and Olum (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
• Uganda Development Bank v Mufumba (Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2015)
• Byakika v National Social Security Fund (Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2017)
• Moro Okola v John Lalobo [1979] HCB 54 at 555
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1992)
• Pandya vs. R. (1957) E.A. 336
• Okeno vs. Republic (1972) E.A. 32
• Charles B. Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
• Barclays Bank v Godfrey Mubiru (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
• R VS INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA EXPARTE ADELAIDE MILK SUPPLY CO. LTD (1977) 16 SASR 6
• Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Attorney General v Sejusa (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Okello vs. Uganda National Examinations Board CA No. 12/1987 reported in [1993] II KALR 133 at 135
• Issa Baluku v SBI International Holdings (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 792 of 2005)
• Charles Lwanga v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Nsiimire v Umeme Limited (LABOUR DISPUTE REFERENCE No. 184 OF 2022)
• Kiyiwa and 13 Others v Makerere University (Labour Dispute Reference 121 of 2015)

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