Kirabo v Marie Stopes Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2017)

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 held that an appellate court will only interfere with a trial court's award of general damages where the trial judge applied a wrong principle of law or where the sum is so high or low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate. Finding that the appellant was irregularly dismissed without proper notice of the disciplinary hearing and insufficient time to prepare, the Court held that the trial Judge's award of UGX 2,000,000 was on the lower side. It set that award aside and substituted a sum of UGX 10,000,000 as general damages. The appeal succeeded and the appellant was awarded costs in both courts.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; general damages increased from UGX 2,000,000 to UGX 10,000,000 with costs to the appellant

Facts

The appellant was employed by the respondent from 1 August 2011 as a centre manager and later hotline counsellor. On 16 November 2012 she received a summary dismissal letter on grounds that she had absented herself from work for six days without permission. The appellant contended the real reason for her dismissal was her refusal to terminate pregnancies. Although the respondent's Human Resource Manual required notice of a disciplinary hearing, no formal notice of the complaints against her or formal invitation to the hearing was communicated, contrary to clause 8.5.3 of the manual. The appellant learnt of the meeting from another source and attended, but was not given sufficient time to prepare or to have counsel represent her. The trial Judge found she had been irregularly dismissed and awarded her one month's pay in lieu of notice, transport, and general damages of UGX 2,000,000. The appellant appealed, challenging the quantum of general damages as too low.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge's award of general damages of UGX 2,000,000 was so low as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate of damages warranting appellate interference.
2. Whether the appellant was entitled to costs of the suit.

Orders

• Appeal succeeds.
• The judgment and orders of the lower Court are confirmed save for the third order on general damages.
• The award of general damages of UGX 2,000,000 is set aside.
• A sum of UGX 10,000,000 is awarded as general damages.
• The appellant is awarded costs here and in the Court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Employment Act 2006 s.66
• Employment Act 2006 s.66(4)
• Employment Act 2006 s.70(3)(a)
• Employment Act 2006 s.70(3)(c)
• Employment Act 2006 s.77(1)
• Employment Act 2006 s.78(1)
• Employment Act 2006 s.79
• Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition paragraph 1202
• Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
• Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
• Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car & General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2003)
• Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi (2002) 1 EA 305
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
• Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)

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.

• Wakabi Robert Fredrick v Electoral Commission (Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2023)
• Ocen v World Vision-Uganda (Labour Dispute Reference No. 01 of 2021)

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