Kayondo v The Co.operative Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 899 of 1989)

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

Held that by-laws of a co-operative society do not form part of an employee's contract of employment unless expressly incorporated in the appointment letter. The termination letter effectively ended the plaintiff's employment despite the absence of the Registrar's approval under the by-laws, as the by-laws created obligations only between the society and its members, not with non-member employees. The court declined to grant a declaration that the contract still subsisted or an injunction, as no special circumstances existed to depart from the general rule that courts will not compel an employer to employ an unwilling employee.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; termination of employment upheld

Facts

The plaintiff served the defendant bank in various capacities from 1975 and was appointed Secretary by letter dated 1 February 1988. His appointment was terminated by letter dated 16 October 1989 signed by the Chairman of the Board of Directors, without reasons given. Terminal benefits were calculated and paid to the plaintiff's account. The plaintiff protested, claiming the termination was unlawful and contrary to laid-down procedure, and declined to accept the payment. He demanded rescission of the termination letter. The defendant rejected this demand. The plaintiff's appointment letter stated that appointment was subject to Bank standing orders, rules, regulations and other administrative directions. Clause 37(1) of the Bank's by-laws required the Registrar of Co-operative Societies' approval for lawful appointment and dismissal of the Secretary. The Registrar refused to approve the termination. The plaintiff sued for injunction, declaration that his contract subsisted, payment of withheld dues, damages, interest and costs.

Issues

1. What were the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's contract of employment?
2. Whether the letter of 16 October 1989 by the Chairman of the defendant Bank terminating the plaintiff's services did or did not terminate the contract of employment?
3. What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?

Orders

• Judgment on issue No. 2: The by-laws do not form part of the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's contract of service with the defendant Bank.
• Judgment on issue No. 3: The letter of 16 October 1989 by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the defendant Bank did effectively determine the plaintiff's contract of services with the defendant.
• Judgment on issue No. 4: The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
• Plaintiff's claim stands dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Co-operative Societies Act 30/70 s.23
• Co-operative Societies Act 30/70 s.85(2)

Cases cited (8)

• Eley v Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co (1876) 1 Ex D 88
• Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep-Breeders' Association [1915] 1 Ch 881
• RAINE Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Baker Civil Appeal No. 3/72 from Zambian High Court Civil case No. 387/70
• Vidyodaya University of Ceylon v Silva [1964] 3 All ER 865
• John Okori Atto v Uganda Electricity Board (1981) HCB 52
• Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1971] 3 All ER 1345
• Wakiso v Burris & Co-operative Union [1968] EA 523
• John Okori Atto v. UEB(1961)UCP, 32

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.

• David Kayondo v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1995] UGSC 3

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