Kilama-Lajul v Uganda Coffee Development Authority & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 270 OF 2019)
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 High Court held that the respondents' decision not to renew the applicant's employment contract was unlawful. The court found the decision was tainted by illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The respondents failed to follow their own Human Resource Manual in appraising the applicant's performance and denied him a fair hearing before the Board, violating principles of natural justice. The court quashed the decision and ordered the respondents to appraise the applicant properly and consider reinstatement or contract renewal.
Outcome
Decision not to renew contract quashed; respondents ordered to properly appraise applicant and consider reinstatement or contract renewal
Facts
The applicant was employed by the first respondent (Uganda Coffee Development Authority) as Board Secretary/Director Corporate Services under a contract ending 30th September 2019, with provision for renewal subject to mutual agreement and satisfactory performance based on an established Performance Measurement System. In July 2019, the applicant requested contract renewal. The second respondent (Managing Director) failed to follow the proper performance appraisal procedures in the Human Resource Manual and unilaterally filled out performance forms without the applicant's involvement. On 30th September 2019, the second respondent wrote to the applicant communicating a decision not to renew his contract, allegedly made by the Board on 2nd September 2019. The applicant contended no lawful Board decision had been made and was driven out of office on 3rd October 2019. Documents showed no Board decision was made on 2nd September 2019 and that minutes may have been backdated at a meeting on 7th October 2019.
Issues
- Whether or not this is a proper case for judicial review.
- Whether the decision contained in the letter dated 30th September 2019 by the respondents was illegal, procedurally improper and irrational.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Declaratory order that the decision of the respondents in dismissing the applicant's contract without a fair hearing was unjustified, unreasonable, against the principles of natural justice and characterized by procedural irregularity.
- Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the respondents not to renew the applicant's contract.
- Order of Mandamus compelling the respondents to appraise the applicant and consider the reinstatement of the applicant or renewal of the applicant's contract of employment basing on the alternative appraisals.
- Damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to the applicant.
- Application allowed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 28
- Constitution of Uganda Article 42
- Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)
- Uganda Coffee Development Authority Act Cap 325 s.5(7)
- Uganda Coffee Development Authority Act Cap 325 s.10
- Uganda Coffee Development Authority Act Cap 325 Schedule Rule 5
- Employment Act s.93(1)
Cases cited (10)
- John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
- DOTT 5 Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
- Balondemu David v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
- Grace Namulondo & 3 Ors v Jone Johns Serwanga Salongo & 2 Ors
- R v Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
- R v Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
- Cocks v Thanet District Council [1983] 2 AC 286
- Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism v Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Limited 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC)
- Johannesburg Stock Exchange v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd 1988 (3) SA 132
- Emily Mbabazi v Rural Electrification Agency & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 165 of 2018)
Cases citing this judgment (5)
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.
- Uganda Sugar Manufacturers Association (USMA) Limited v Attorney General & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 195 of 2024)
- Kiganda v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause 133 of 2022)
- EAA Company Limited v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Application 21 of 2023)
- Kayondo v Bank of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 109 of 2022)
- Kilama Lajul v Uganda Revenue Authourity (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2020)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.