Kagendo v Civil Aviation Authority (Labour Dispute 16 of 2014)
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 Industrial Court held that the claimant's termination was unlawful. The court found that the claimant, as an Air Traffic Controller, owed no duty of care to provide standard separation to aircraft flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), as the primary responsibility for collision avoidance rested with the pilots. The court further held that the respondent failed to prove the reason for dismissal under s.68 of the Employment Act, suspended the claimant for more than four weeks contrary to s.63, and conducted a disciplinary hearing that did not meet the requirements of s.66. The claimant was awarded general damages, outstanding terminal benefits, severance allowance, and other remedies.
Outcome
Claimant's termination declared unlawful; claimant awarded general damages, outstanding terminal benefits, severance allowance, long service award, and certificate of service; NSSF remittance ordered
Facts
On 2 October 2012, two aircraft (AF 639 and AF 329) had a near mid-air collision (termed an 'Airprox') while the claimant, a Senior Air Traffic Management Officer, was on duty. The claimant's validation was withdrawn on 4 October 2012, and she was suspended from work on 1 November 2012. On 28 March 2013, she was invited to discuss the alleged negligence, and on 4 November 2013, she was terminated for negligence and outright denial of an error. The claimant contended that her termination was unlawful because the disciplinary process was flawed and the punishment was excessive. The respondent argued that the claimant had been negligent in failing to provide standard separation between the aircraft and that she had been accorded a fair hearing. The court found that both aircraft were flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), which placed the primary responsibility for collision avoidance on the pilots, not the Air Traffic Controller. The court also found that the claimant had provided advisory information to both pilots and that the respondent had not proved the reason for dismissal.
Issues
- Whether the claimant's termination was lawful?
- What remedies are due to the claimant, if any?
Orders
- Declaration that the claimant's employment termination was unlawful.
- Payment of UGX 100,000,000 as general damages for unlawful termination.
- Payment of UGX 42,933,035 as outstanding balance on terminal benefits.
- Payment of UGX 37,890,770 as severance allowance.
- Payment of long service award in accordance with Article 73.2(a) and (d) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (2 economy air tickets or equivalent in Uganda shillings) and issuance of a certificate of appreciation.
- Issuance of a certificate of service in accordance with s.61 of the Employment Act 2006.
- Remittance to the National Social Security Fund of NSSF accrued during the claimant's 3 months' notice of termination.
- Interest of 20% per annum on monetary awards from date of judgment until full and final payment.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (20)
- Employment Act 2006 s.61
- Employment Act 2006 s.63
- Employment Act 2006 s.66
- Employment Act 2006 s.68
- Employment Act 2006 s.87
- Civil Aviation Authority Act Cap 354 s.6
- Civil Aviation Authority Act Cap 354 s.35(1)(b)
- Civil Aviation (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) Regulations SI 58 of 2006 reg.14
- Civil Aviation (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) Regulations SI 58 of 2006 reg.15
- Civil Aviation (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) Regulations SI 58 of 2006 reg.31
- Civil Aviation (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) Regulations SI 58 of 2006 reg.32
- Civil Aviation (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) Regulations SI 58 of 2006 reg.34
- Civil Aviation (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) Regulations SI 58 of 2006 reg.69
- Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations SI 23 of 2012 reg.6
- National Social Security Fund Act s.11(1)
- National Social Security Fund Act s.12
- National Social Security Fund Act s.43
- National Social Security Fund Act s.44
- National Social Security Fund Act s.46
- National Social Security Fund Act s.48
Cases cited (10)
- Mcfoy v United Africa Company Limited (1961) 3 All ER 1169
- Kiga Lane Hotel vs Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd
- Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex 781
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
- Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
- Matovu v Umeme Ltd (Labour Dispute No. 4 of 2014)
- Mufumbo v Uganda Development Bank (Labour Dispute No. 138 of 2014)
- Kamuli v DFCU Bank Limited (Labour Dispute No. 2 of 2015)
- Omunyokol Johnson Akol v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.