Wakilii

Kawemba vs D- Light Design Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 348 of 2019)

Industrial Court · [2025] UGIC 9 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from KCCA/RUB/LC/407/2019 claiming compensation for unfair termination
Decision
Claimant awarded general damages of UGX 14,000,000 with interest; claim for severance pay and aggravated damages dismissed

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 claimant's termination for poor performance was both procedurally and substantively unlawful. The employer failed to comply with Employment Act sections 65 and 67 by not giving the claimant an opportunity to be heard before dismissal and not proving that a performance improvement process was properly implemented with required support. The claimant was awarded general damages of UGX 14,000,000 but denied severance pay for serving less than six months.

Outcome

Claimant awarded general damages of UGX 14,000,000 with interest; claim for severance pay and aggravated damages dismissed

Facts

The claimant was employed as Head of Training on 1 May 2019. On 25 July 2019 his position changed to National Sales Trainer with salary of UGX 8,667,000 per month. He was given Key Performance Indicators on 12 September 2019 to increase daily active Sales Energy Promoters from 85 to specified targets by mid-July through end of September. On 26 August 2019, after approximately three months of employment, the respondent terminated his contract for failure to achieve set targets, specifically achieving only 686 active SEPs versus a target of 1,280 by end of August. The claimant contended the targets were unrealistic and he was not given required support including adequate regional managers, vehicles, and incentives. The respondent maintained it provided support and conducted performance improvement processes before termination, paying all terminal benefits including one month in lieu of notice.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant's termination was unjustified and unlawful?
  2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • It is declared that the Claimant's dismissal was procedurally and substantively unlawful.
  • The Claimant is awarded UGX 14,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest at 10% per annum shall accrue on the award from the date of filing until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs is made.

Rules and key headnotes

Unfair Dismissal — Termination for Poor Performance — Procedural Requirements
Where an employer terminates employment for poor performance, the employer must comply with Employment Act sections 65 and 67 by notifying the employee of the reason for dismissal, giving the employee an opportunity to respond, and proving the validity and correctness of the reasons for termination before dismissal.
Performance Improvement Plans — Evidentiary Requirements
A performance improvement plan need not be in writing and may consist of discussions, conversations, and email exchanges, but the employer must demonstrate with credible evidence that such conversations took place, that the employee was notified about performance gaps, and that the employee was given an opportunity to improve before termination.
Performance Improvement Plans — Purpose and Implementation
A performance improvement plan is a corrective tool aimed at improving employee performance, not a veil or conduit to dismiss unwanted employees. It must identify performance gaps, specify strategies for addressing these gaps, define the roles of the parties, outline the improvement process, and state the consequences where performance does not improve.
Unfair Dismissal — Appraisal Discussions Distinguished from Disciplinary Hearings
Appraisal and discussions held between employees and employers touching on the employee's work performance do not constitute a disciplinary hearing and can only serve as evidence in support of good or poor performance at a disciplinary hearing.
Severance Pay — Minimum Service Period
Under Employment Act section 86, an employee who has been unlawfully terminated is entitled to severance pay only if the employee has served the employer for more than six months.
Costs — Principle of No Order as to Costs in Labour Disputes
In labour disputes, costs are granted only in exceptional circumstances due to the unequal contract between employer and employee. The employer has power of capital and can afford litigation costs, while the employee who has lost means of earning cannot, and awarding costs against the employee would condemn them to destitution. To ensure equality in justice, this principle applies to the employer as well.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • Ebiju James v UMEME Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 133 of 2012)
  • Carolyne Turyatemba and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • Moses Obonyo v MTN (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute No. 195 of 2009)
  • Hilda Musingizi v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Limited v Apollo Twinohangi Tayebwa (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 21 of 2020)
  • Dona Kamuli v DFCU Bank Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 002 of 2015)
  • James v Waltham Holy Cross UDS [1973] IRLR 202
  • Imakit Martin v Vivo Energy (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute Case No. 034 of 2017)
  • Kiyingi Yasin v Post Bank Uganda Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 014 of 2022)
  • Akeny Robert v Uganda Communications Commission (Labour Dispute Case No. 023 of 2015)
  • British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift I.R.L.R 91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kawemba_vs_D-_Light_Design_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_348_of_2019)_[2025]_UGIC_9_(27_January_2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.