Wakilii

Moi v Ishaka Quality Commodities Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 119 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 21 · 2023 Claim Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from labour complaint before the Industrial Court
Decision
Claimant's claim for unfair termination granted with awards for payment in lieu of notice, severance pay, and general damages

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 was unfairly terminated from employment. The court found that the claimant was absent from work during the COVID-19 lockdown period with reliable grounds, and that the employer terminated him without following procedural fairness requirements under Section 66 of the Employment Act 2006, specifically the right to a fair hearing. The court awarded the claimant payment in lieu of notice, severance allowance, and general damages.

Outcome

Claimant's claim for unfair termination granted with awards for payment in lieu of notice, severance pay, and general damages

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Shielding Machine Operator by the respondent from 2011, earning UGX 150,000 per month. During the COVID-19 lockdown in May 2020, the claimant was absent from work. The claimant testified he was asked to take two weeks' leave and upon return on 8 June 2020 was asked to vacate the premises permanently. The respondent contended the claimant absconded from work during a busy coffee season and that it had to engage an alternative worker. The respondent's managing director testified that the claimant said he was not interested in maintaining the job and asked to be paid. The court found the claimant was not at work from May to June 2020 but had reliable grounds for absence given the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. The court concluded the respondent terminated the claimant's employment on or around 8 June 2020 without following procedural fairness requirements, specifically without holding a disciplinary hearing as required under Section 66 of the Employment Act 2006.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant was terminated, and if so, whether it was lawful?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Claimant was unfairly terminated from the Respondent's service.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 300,000/= as salary in lieu of notice.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 1,050,000/= as severance pay.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 7,375,000/= as general damages.
  • The sums awarded shall carry interest at 19% per annum from the date of this award until payment in full.
  • The Respondent shall issue a certificate of service to the Claimant within 21 days of this award.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Termination of Employment — Procedural Fairness — Right to Fair Hearing
Where an employer terminates an employee, the employer must adhere to the provisions of Section 66 of the Employment Act 2006 relating to the right to a fair hearing. Lack of procedural fairness renders a termination unlawful.
Fair Hearing — Requirements for Procedural Fairness
For the right to a fair hearing to be satisfied, (i) a notice of allegations must be served sufficiently for the employee to prepare a defence, (ii) the notice should set out clearly what the allegations are and the employee's rights at the hearing, including the right to respond orally or in writing, the right to be accompanied, and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and (iii) the employee should be allowed to appear and present their case before an impartial committee in charge of disciplinary issues.
Absence from Work — COVID-19 Lockdown — Reliable Grounds
Under Section 75(i) of the Employment Act 2006, absence for three months does not invite disciplinary sanction if there are reliable grounds for the absence. During the COVID-19 lockdown period with its attendant transportation difficulties, an employee's absence from work may constitute reliable grounds.
Payment in Lieu of Notice — Calculation Based on Period of Service
Under Section 58(3)(c) of the Employment Act 2006, an employee who has served for seven years and nine months is entitled to two months' payment in lieu of notice upon termination.
Severance Allowance — Unfair Termination
Under Section 87(a) of the Employment Act 2006, an unfairly dismissed employee is entitled to a severance allowance calculated at the rate of the employee's monthly pay for each year worked.
General Damages — Assessment Principles
General damages in employment disputes are based on the common law principle of restitutio in integrum and should be assessed on the prospects of the employee getting alternative employment or employability, how the services were terminated, and the inconvenience and uncertainty of future employment prospects. Factors such as malice or arrogance on the part of an employer and humiliation and distress of the employee may also be considered.
Costs — Discretion in Employment Disputes
Under Section 8(2a)(d) of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Amendment Act 2021, the award of costs is discretionary. In employment disputes, the grant of costs to the successful party is an exception on account of the nature of the employment relationship except where it is established that the unsuccessful party has filed a frivolous action or is culpable of some form of misconduct.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (19)

  • Moses Obonyo v MTN
  • Lusiba Deogratius v NWSC (Labour Dispute Reference No. 120 of 2016)
  • Mudoma Charles v Kenfreight (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute Case No. 042 of 2015)
  • Awio Rose Filder v School Management Committee Hoffman COU (Labour Dispute Reference No. 187 of 2016)
  • Mbiika Dennis v Centenary Bank Ltd (Labour Dispute Case No. 23 of 2014)
  • Katinda James v NNHP Enterprises (Labour Dispute Reference No. 169 of 2015)
  • Hilda Musinguzi v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2012)
  • Bank of Uganda v Geoffrey Mubiru (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Nicholas Mugisha v Equity Bank Ltd
  • Ogwal Jaspher v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd
  • Ebiju James v Umeme Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 0133 of 2012)
  • Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank Ltd
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Donna Kamuli (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2016)
  • Edace Michael v Watoto Child Care Ministries L.D. A 21 of 2015
  • Ochwo John v Appliance World Ltd LOR 327 of 2015
  • Florence Mufumba v UDB (Labour Dispute Case No. 138 of 2014)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Constant Okou (Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2020)
  • Obonyo and Anor v Municipal Council of Kisumu 1971 EA 91
  • Joseph Kalule v Giz (Labour Dispute Reference No. 109 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Moi_v_Ishaka_Quality_Commodities_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_119_of_2021)_[2023]_UGIC_21_(30_June_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.