Wakilii

Kiyiwa and 13 Others v Makerere University (Labour Dispute Reference 121 of 2015)

Industrial Court · [2024] UGIC 61 · 2024 Claim Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from alleged unlawful termination following unilateral re-designation of catering staff to cleaning roles
Decision
Claimants' claim succeeded; they were found to have been constructively and unlawfully dismissed and awarded severance pay, general damages, notice pay, repatriation allowances, and pension entitlements

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 Makerere University's unilateral re-designation of fourteen long-serving catering staff to cleaning roles, without their consent and in breach of a promise to allow them to choose from four options, constituted a fundamental breach of their employment contracts amounting to constructive dismissal. The court found the re-designation unlawful under the Employment Act 2006, which requires written agreement for variations to fundamental employment terms. The claimants were awarded severance pay, general damages, notice pay, repatriation allowances, and accrued pension entitlements.

Outcome

Claimants' claim succeeded; they were found to have been constructively and unlawfully dismissed and awarded severance pay, general damages, notice pay, repatriation allowances, and pension entitlements

Facts

Fourteen employees of Makerere University, comprising thirteen catering staff (cooks, waiters, storemen) and one domestic bursar, were employed between 1978 and 2000 under the Public Service Standing Orders. In February 2014, the University advertised for external catering services. On 19 May 2014, it wrote to the employees' union offering four options: re-designation, early retirement, voluntary resignation, or retrenchment, promising to provide details and benefits of each option. Without providing these details or allowing the employees to choose, the University on 17 June 2014 unilaterally re-designated them as cleaners in different departments and directed them to report or be deemed to have absconded. The employees refused to assume the new roles. In August 2016, they were deleted from the payroll. All had served between 18 and 40 years.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's re-designation of the Claimants was lawful?
  2. Whether the termination of the Claimants' employment was lawful?
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the Respondent's unilateral re-designation of the Claimants was unlawful.
  • Declaration that the unilateral redesignation amounted to constructive dismissal which is unlawful.
  • Severance allowance awarded to each Claimant at the rate of one month's salary per year of service.
  • General damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to each Claimant.
  • Repatriation allowance awarded to each Claimant at the rate of UGX 10,000 per kilometre to their home district.
  • Notice pay of three months' salary awarded to each Claimant.
  • Respondent ordered to compute each Claimant's accrued pension entitlement in accordance with Section L-1(1) of the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders.
  • Interest of 8% per annum on general damages from the date of dismissal.
  • Interest of 15% per annum on all other pecuniary awards from the date of the award until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract of Employment — Variation of Fundamental Terms — Requirement of Consent
An employer cannot unilaterally alter fundamental terms of an employment contract, including job title and duties, without the employee's consent. Such unilateral variation constitutes a fundamental breach of contract.
Employment Act 2006 — Section 58(4) — Written Notice of Changes to Employment Particulars
Section 58(4) of the Employment Act 2006 requires that any changes to the particulars of employment must be agreed upon by both parties and the employer must issue written notice of the changes to the employee. This provision prohibits unilateral variations by the employer.
Human Resource Manual — Introduction of New Terms — Requirement of Employee Consent
Where an employer introduces a Human Resource Manual with the intention of varying the terms and conditions of an existing employment contract, the consent of the affected employee must be sought. A unilateral variation through a new manual is null and void under Section 27 of the Employment Act 2006.
Legitimate Expectation — Public Authority — Duty to Honour Clear Promises
A legitimate expectation arises where a public authority makes an express promise, representation, or assurance that is clear, unambiguous, and devoid of relevant qualification to an individual or group. If the authority has distinctly promised to implement policy in a specific manner for persons who would be substantially affected by a change, it must ordinarily keep its promise. Acting contrary to the legitimate expectation would be to act so unfairly as to perpetrate an abuse of power.
Constructive Dismissal — Unilateral Re-designation — Fundamental Breach
Where an employer unilaterally assigns an employee new duties that fundamentally alter the job title and roles without consent, this amounts to a significant breach going to the root of the employment contract. The employee is entitled to treat himself or herself as discharged from any further performance of duties under the original contract. Such conduct constitutes constructive dismissal.
Transfer of Service — Distinction from Re-designation
A contractual term permitting transfer to another department entails a change in location, not a fundamental change of job title and roles. Transfer of service means moving the same service from one department to another and cannot be used as a basis to re-designate staff to entirely different roles.
Remedies — Severance Allowance — Calculation Formula
Where there is no negotiated formula for calculating severance allowance between employer and employee, the court applies the formula of one month's salary for every year of service, as established in Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank and upheld by the Court of Appeal in African Field Epidemiology Network (AFNET) v Peter Waswa Kityaba.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (30)

  • Ugafode Microfinance Limited v Mark Kyoribona (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 34 of 2019)
  • Kiwalabye Joseph Kayondo and others v Posta Uganda (Labour Dispute Claim No. 18 of 2015)
  • Wagaba Francis v The Chief Administrative Officer Maracha and Maracha District Local Government (High Court Civil Suit No. 5 of 2016)
  • Mary Pamela Ssozi v PPDA (High Court Civil Suit No. 63 of 2012)
  • Francis vs Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce 1994 Can Lil 1578
  • Bank of Uganda v Joseph Kibuuka and 4 others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 281 of 2016)
  • Ayikoru Gladys v Board of Governors St. Mary's Ediofe Girls Secondary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 26 of 2016)
  • R(Bhatt Muruphy v Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755)
  • Board of Governors, Cardinal Otunga High School Mosocho and 3 others v Elizabeth Kwamboka Khaemba (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2015)
  • Birmingham City Council v Wetheril(2007)
  • Burdett-Coutts v Herts CC(1984)
  • Allen Namuyiga v Export Trading Co. Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 49 of 2020)
  • Suzanna Haarbosh v Kamtech Logistics (Labour Dispute Claim No. 233 of 2015)
  • Nyakabwa Abwoii v Security 2000 Ltd (Labour Dispute Claim No. 108 of 2014)
  • Coca-Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Ligaga (Court of Appeal No. 20 of 2012)
  • Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 222 or [1978] QB761
  • Office v Roberts (1981) IRLR 347
  • Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 002 of 2015)
  • African Field Epidemiology Network (AFNET) v Peter Waswa Kityaba (Court of Appeal No. 0124 of 2017)
  • Uganda Post Limited v Consolette Mukadisi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Limited v Okou (Court of Appeal No. 60 of 2020)
  • Ben Kimuli v Sanyu Fm 2000 Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 126 of 2015)
  • James Sowabiri & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • Huljiah v Hall [1973]2 NZLR 279 at 287
  • Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Limited v Nassanga Saphinah Kasule (Court of Appeal No. 182 of 2021)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Bholm v Car and General Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Adam Kafumbe Mukasa and 2 others v Uganda Breweries Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2018)
  • Charles Lwanga v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Court of Appeal No. 30 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiyiwa_and_13_Others_v_Makerere_University_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_121_of_2015)_[2024]_UGIC_61_(23_August_2024)
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.