Wakilii

Kisembo v Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 344 of 2014)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 115 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction to restrain disciplinary hearing pending disposal of main suit
Decision
Application dismissed and interim orders discharged

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

Held that an application for temporary injunction under Order 41 Rule 2 is incompetent where the plaint does not contain a prayer for permanent injunction. The court found that even on the merits, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, as the employer did not breach its policy by conducting disciplinary proceedings concurrently with criminal proceedings under Employment Act 2006 s.66(2), and the applicant's right to silence would not be violated since disciplinary and criminal proceedings are distinct processes.

Outcome

Application dismissed and interim orders discharged

Facts

The applicant had been employed by the respondent bank since 1 November 2010. On 30 April 2014, he was placed on investigative suspension following allegations of gross misconduct, specifically that he had sent funds to third parties without authorization. The respondent invited him to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 16 July 2014 and also commenced criminal proceedings against him. The applicant filed a main suit seeking a declaration that the disciplinary hearing was unlawful and should be postponed until the conclusion of criminal proceedings, together with a temporary injunction. An interim order was granted on 15 July 2014 restraining the disciplinary hearing pending determination of the temporary injunction application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was competent in the absence of a prayer for permanent injunction in the main suit.
  2. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which could not be adequately compensated in damages.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a temporary injunction.
  5. Whether the respondent breached its Group Employee Responsibilities Policy by conducting disciplinary proceedings concurrently with criminal proceedings.
  6. Whether the applicant's constitutional right to silence would be violated by the disciplinary hearing.

Orders

  • Application dismissed as incompetent for lack of prayer for permanent injunction in the main suit.
  • Application dismissed on the merits.
  • Interim orders discharged.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Injunctions — Temporary Injunction — Competence — Requirement for Prayer for Permanent Injunction
An application for a temporary injunction under Order 41 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules is incompetent where the plaint does not contain a prayer for permanent injunction, as the relief sought in the main action must be for a permanent injunction in order for an applicant to seek a temporary one before the case is heard.
Disciplinary Proceedings — Concurrent Criminal Proceedings — Employer's Right to Proceed
An employer is not required to wait for the outcome of criminal proceedings before conducting disciplinary proceedings against an employee, provided there are reasonable grounds for taking such action and the employer follows due process as required by the Employment Act 2006 and the employer's internal policy. Criminal proceedings and disciplinary action by an employer are two separate processes that may run concurrently.
Disciplinary Proceedings — Employer Policy — Interpretation of 'In Addition to Internal Disciplinary Sanctions'
Where an employer's policy provides that the employer may pursue civil and criminal means of redress 'in addition to internal disciplinary sanctions', the clause does not prevent the employer from taking disciplinary action and criminal redress concurrently or one after the other, whichever way the employer considers appropriate.
Right to Silence — Disciplinary Hearing — No Violation
A disciplinary hearing does not violate an employee's constitutional right to silence in concurrent criminal proceedings under Article 28(3) and (11) of the Constitution. The purpose of a disciplinary hearing is not to compel the employee to give evidence, but to afford an opportunity to respond to allegations, and disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings with different standards of proof.
Temporary Injunction — Test for Grant — Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Injury, Balance of Convenience
An application for a temporary injunction must satisfy three tests: (1) the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial, which requires demonstrating a serious question to be tried; (2) the applicant must show that irreparable injury would be suffered which cannot adequately be compensated in damages; and (3) if the court is in doubt on the first two principles, it must decide on the balance of convenience.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (11)

  • Giella v Casmon Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Frank Nkuyahanga v Esso (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 337 of 1992)
  • Kihara v Barclays Bank Ltd [2001] 2 EA 420
  • Morris and Co Ltd v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2003] 2 EA 605
  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] ALL ER 504
  • Herbert Kabunga Traders v Stanbic Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 159 of 2012)
  • Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 562 of 2005)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Pan Afric Impex v Barclays Bank and ABSA Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 804 of 2007)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Kasedde [1985] HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisembo v Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 344 of 2014) [2014] UGHCCD 115 (9 September 2014)
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.