Wakilii

Makuza v Civil Aviation Authority & Another (Labour Dispute Reference 41 of 2019)

Industrial Court · [2024] UGIC 57 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from termination of employment
Decision
Claim succeeded with substantial damages awarded to the Claimant and permanent injunction granted

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 termination of the Claimant, who served as Managing Director of the Civil Aviation Authority for 26 years, was unlawful and unfair. The Respondent failed to accord the Claimant a fair hearing before termination, failed to specify or prove the alleged performance gaps, and did not follow its own disciplinary procedures or the statutory requirements under the Employment Act. The Court further held that the Respondents' publication of statements in print and online media portraying the Claimant as incompetent and corrupt was defamatory, as the statements were false, unsubstantiated, and published with malice. The Claimant was awarded substantial general damages, aggravated damages, and compensatory damages for defamation.

Outcome

Claim succeeded with substantial damages awarded to the Claimant and permanent injunction granted

Facts

The Claimant was employed by the Civil Aviation Authority from 1991, initially as Deputy Managing Director and from 2008 as Managing Director on renewable five-year contracts. On 27 March 2017, after 26 years of service and with 8 months remaining on his contract, the Minister of Works and Transport terminated his employment based on a Board of Directors performance assessment that identified unspecified performance gaps. The Claimant was paid three months' salary in lieu of notice but was not given a hearing or opportunity to respond to the allegations. He was immediately locked out of his office. Following the termination, the Ministry's Public Relations Officer convened press interviews and statements were published in multiple newspapers and online media portraying the Claimant as incompetent and corrupt. The Inspector General of Government later cleared the Claimant of corruption allegations two years after his termination.

Issues

  1. Whether the termination of the Claimant's contract of service by the Respondent was unlawful/unfair?
  2. Whether the conduct of the Respondents of engaging in publicity on websites and in the media on matters related to the termination of the Claimant's contract of service was defamatory of the Claimant?
  3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any remedies?

Orders

  • Declaratory order that the termination was unlawful, unfair, high-handed, malicious, and procedurally and substantively unlawful.
  • General damages of UGX 625,635,000 awarded to the Claimant.
  • Aggravated damages of UGX 170,000,000 awarded to the Claimant.
  • Compensatory damages for defamation of UGX 300,000,000 awarded to the Claimant.
  • Respondent ordered to render a written apology to the Claimant clearing his image in the print media and websites cited, once every month for 6 months from the date of the award.
  • Permanent injunction restraining the Respondents jointly or severally from publishing further defamatory statements about the Claimant.
  • Interest at 12% per annum on general damages, aggravated damages, and compensatory damages from the date of the award until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Termination of Employment — Fair Hearing — Statutory Requirement
Where an employer gives a reason for termination of employment, particularly one related to poor performance or misconduct, the employer must accord the employee a fair hearing in accordance with section 65(1) and (2) of the Employment Act and Article 28 of the Constitution, and must prove the existence, validity, and fairness of the reason under section 67 of the Employment Act, notwithstanding the employer's general right to terminate employment.
Performance Appraisal — Basis for Disciplinary Action
Performance appraisal findings cannot serve as a conclusive basis for disciplinary action including termination unless the alleged performance gaps are specified, enumerated, communicated to the employee, and the employee is given an opportunity to respond. Relying on generalized outcomes of an appraisal without specifying the performance gaps and allowing the employee to give an explanation renders the appraisal process inconclusive and the resultant termination unfair.
Damages — General Damages for Unlawful Termination
General damages for unlawful termination are not restricted to the notice period or salary stipulated in the employment contract. They are assessed by the court to compensate for non-economic harm including emotional distress, mental anguish, damage to reputation, and any other non-monetary harm suffered due to the dismissal, and are awarded as disapproval for the high-handed manner of termination and procedural impropriety.
Defamation — Publication — Falsity and Malice
A statement is defamatory if it is false, published to a third party, and tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injure them in their profession or trade. Where an employer publishes or causes the publication of false statements about an employee's termination portraying them as incompetent or corrupt without substantiation, such statements are defamatory and attract compensatory damages.
Industrial Court — Jurisdiction — Defamation Claims
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims of defamation arising from or connected to the employment relationship between an employee and an employer, as it has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court and is empowered under section 8(3)(d) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act to exercise the powers and character of the High Court in exercising its functions.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (30)

  • Barclays Bank v Godfrey Mubiru (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Hilda Musinguzi v Stanbic Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2016)
  • Bank of Uganda v Kibuuka and 4 others
  • Stanbic Bank Ltd v Kiyimba Mutaale (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
  • Hilda Musinguzi v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank v Deogratious Asiimwe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2018)
  • Bank of Uganda v Joseph Kibuuka and 4 others (Civil Appeal No. 281 of 2016)
  • James Odong v Airtel (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 210 of 2018)
  • John Retemo Ondieki vs Islamic Relief World Wide, RLRC, cause No. 1422 of 2012
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Limited v Okou (Court of Appeal No. 60 of 2020)
  • Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2006)
  • Uganda Post Ltd v Consolate Mukadisi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Deogratius Asiimwe (Court of Appeal No. 18 of 2018)
  • Rev Fr. John Neudegger v The Telecast Newspaper and Others [1988-1990] IHCB
  • Mwesigwa v Attorney General and Another (Labour Dispute Reference No. 353 of 2019)
  • Asaph Ruhinda Ntenge and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2016)
  • Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2011)
  • Engineer John Eric Mugyenzi v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2018)
  • Miguna Miguna v The Standard Group and KTN and another [2017] eKLR
  • Pullman v Walter Hill & Co (1891) 1 QB 524
  • Ak Oils & Fats (U) Ltd v Bidco Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 2005)
  • Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309
  • Nation Media Group Ltd & 2 others v John Joseph Kamotho & 3 others [2010]
  • Bigirimana v The Monitor Publications Ltd A Nation Media Group (High Court Civil Suit No. 612 of 2017)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA, 35
  • Frederick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Rookes Bearnard
  • Obongo v Municipal Council Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Kanabo v The Chief Editor, Engabo News Paper
  • URA v Wanume David Kitamirike (Court of Appeal No. 43 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makuza_v_Civil_Aviation_Authority_&_Another_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_41_of_2019)_[2024]_UGIC_57_(29_October_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.