Wakilii

Kiyingi v Post Bank Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 14 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 113 · 2023 Judgment for Claimant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from Iganga District Labour Complaint 14/2022
Decision
Claimant awarded general damages and payment in lieu of notice for unlawful dismissal

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 dismissal for poor performance was unlawful. The court found that the employer placed the claimant on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) only three months after his redesignation to a new role with doubled targets, which was too soon and unfair. The PIP was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdown, yet the employer failed to adjust performance targets or provide adequate support after disposing of the claimant's work motorcycle. The court concluded that the PIP was not implemented fairly or objectively, and the dismissal was therefore unjustified. The claimant was awarded general damages of UGX 35,000,000 and two months' salary in lieu of notice.

Outcome

Claimant awarded general damages and payment in lieu of notice for unlawful dismissal

Facts

The claimant was employed by the respondent bank as an Agriculture Credit Officer and consistently met his annual targets. In August 2020, he was redesignated to the position of Business Banker with doubled targets. In November 2020, after only three months in the new role, he was appraised and scored 2A (poor performance). He was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) from January to March 2021. During the PIP period, Uganda experienced a COVID-19 lockdown, and the respondent disposed of the claimant's work motorcycle. The claimant's PIP was extended to June 2021, but he continued to underperform. Following a disciplinary hearing in August 2021, the respondent terminated his employment on 8 September 2021 for continued poor performance. The claimant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant's termination was lawful?
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The claimant's dismissal was unlawful.
  • General damages of UGX 35,000,000 awarded to the claimant.
  • Payment in lieu of notice of UGX 2,163,679 awarded to the claimant.
  • Interest at 12% per annum on all pecuniary awards from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Claim for recovery of loan amounting to UGX 5,894,217 plus interest denied.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Performance Management — Performance Improvement Plans — Fairness and Objectivity Requirements
A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) must be implemented fairly and objectively, with the employer providing adequate support, resources, and coaching to enable the employee to meet performance targets. The PIP is a corrective tool intended to improve performance, not a veil to dismiss an employee.
Performance Appraisal — Timing After Redesignation — Probationary Period
Where an employee is redesignated to a new position with significantly increased targets, it is unfair to conduct a performance appraisal and place the employee on a PIP after only three months, particularly where the Employment Act provides for a six-month probationary period to allow an employee reasonable time to adjust to a new role.
Dismissal for Poor Performance — Consideration of External Circumstances — COVID-19 Pandemic
When assessing an employee's performance during a Performance Improvement Plan, an employer must take into account external circumstances beyond the employee's control, such as a national lockdown and economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and adjust performance targets and support accordingly. Failure to do so renders the dismissal unfair and unlawful.
Performance Improvement Plans — Employer's Duty to Provide Support
During a Performance Improvement Plan, the employer has a duty to provide the employee with adequate support, resources, and feedback to enable the employee to meet performance targets. The PIP review process must be participatory and document the employer's role in supporting the employee, not merely record the employee's failures.
Unlawful Dismissal — Remedies — General Damages
An employee who is unlawfully dismissed is entitled to general damages assessed on the basis of the prospects of obtaining alternative employment, how services were terminated, and the inconvenience and uncertainty of future employment prospects. General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court and are intended to restore the aggrieved party to the position they were in before the wrongful dismissal.
Unlawful Dismissal — Payment in Lieu of Notice
Where an employee has been unlawfully dismissed, the employee is entitled to payment in lieu of notice in accordance with section 58(3) of the Employment Act 2006, which provides for notice periods based on length of service. An employee employed for five years but less than ten years is entitled to not less than two months' notice or payment in lieu thereof.
Unlawful Dismissal — Recovery of Unsecured Loans — Burden of Proof
Where an employee who has been unlawfully dismissed seeks to recover an unsecured loan from the employer, the employee bears the onus of proving that the loan was purely unsecured and that its repayment was solely premised on salary. In the absence of evidence such as the loan agreement, the claim for recovery of the loan will be denied.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (12)

  • Stanbic Bank Ltd v Kiyemba Mutale (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
  • DFCU vs Donna Kamuli
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Rogers Kasozi vs NIC No.283/2014
  • Florence Mufumbo Vs UDB LDC No.138/2014
  • Kanyangoga Vs Bank of Uganda LDC No.080/2014
  • Jane Wairimu Machira Vs Mugo Wawern and Associates ELRC Cause No. 621 of 2012
  • John Retemo Ondieki vs Islamic Relief World widew, RLRC, cause No. 1422 of 2012
  • Martin Imakit vs Vivo Energy (U) Ltd LDC No. 034 of 2017
  • Tamale Musisi Rita vs Airtel Uganda Limited LDR No. 183/2017
  • Stanbic Bank v Twinomuhangi (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 21 of 2020)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd vs Constant Okuo

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiyingi_v_Post_Bank_Uganda_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_14_of_2022)_[2023]_UGIC_113_(4_July_2023)
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.