Wakilii

Muyomba v Southern Range Nyanza Limited and Another (Labour Dispute Reference 52 of 2020)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 109 · 2023 Claim Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from termination of employment
Decision
Claimant's employment found to have been unlawfully terminated; monetary awards granted for payment in lieu of notice, pro-rated salary, general damages, and severance pay

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 a security guard who enforced the employer's COVID-19 directive by refusing entry to the Managing Director for not wearing a mask was unlawfully terminated. The court found that the employee was simply obeying a lawful order and that terminating him for enforcing the employer's own directive amounted to an unjustifiable reason. The claimant was awarded damages, payment in lieu of notice, pro-rated salary, and severance pay, but his rejection of reinstatement was not held against him.

Outcome

Claimant's employment found to have been unlawfully terminated; monetary awards granted for payment in lieu of notice, pro-rated salary, general damages, and severance pay

Facts

The claimant was employed as a security guard from July 2011, earning UGX 772,306 per month by April 2020. In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer issued a directive prohibiting entry to anyone not wearing a mask. On 6 May 2020, the claimant enforced this directive by refusing entry to the Managing Director, Viney Kumar, who was not wearing a mask. The claimant was subjected to disciplinary hearings on 16 and 18 May 2020 and terminated on 19 May 2020 for alleged insubordination and racial discrimination. The employer alleged the claimant selectively enforced the directive against Asian managers. Following union intervention, the employer offered reinstatement on 22 May 2020, requiring the claimant to report by 25 May, but the letter was received on 26 May. The claimant rejected the offer and his terminal benefits.

Issues

  1. Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was unlawful?
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Claim succeeds.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 1,554,612 as payment in lieu of two months' notice.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 489,127 as pro-rated salary for 19 days worked in May 2020.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 10,000,000 as general damages.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 6,950,754 as severance pay for nine years of service.
  • All pecuniary awards to accrue interest at 12% per annum from date of award until payment in full.
  • Claim for untaken leave denied.
  • Claim for exemplary/punitive damages denied.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Unfair Dismissal — Enforcement of Employer's Directive — COVID-19 Safety Measures
An employee who enforces an employer's lawful directive uniformly, including against senior management, cannot be lawfully dismissed for insubordination when the directive applied to all staff without exception.
Procedural Fairness — Disciplinary Hearings — Employment Act Requirements
Sections 58, 65, 66, 68, 69 and 70(6) of the Employment Act, being concerned with the same subject of termination, must be construed as a whole to ensure both substantive and procedural fairness before an employer can lawfully dismiss an employee.
Reinstatement — Rejection by Employee — Effect on Unlawful Termination Finding
An employee who has been unlawfully terminated cannot be faulted for refusing an offer of reinstatement, as the employment relationship is based on trust and confidence which cease to exist when the relationship is unlawfully terminated, and an employer cannot force an employee to return to work.
Severance Pay — Calculation Formula — Unlawful Termination
Where an employee is unlawfully terminated after serving for six months or more and there is no agreed formula for calculating severance pay under section 89 of the Employment Act, the employee is entitled to payment of one month's salary for every year served as severance pay.
Untaken Leave — Burden of Proof — Agreement Between Parties
For an employee to succeed in a claim for untaken leave under section 54(1)(a) of the Employment Act, the employee must prove that he or she applied to take leave during a particular period and it was denied, as the period when leave shall be taken must be agreed between the parties.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muyomba_v_Southern_Range_Nyanza_Limited_and_Another_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_52_of_2020)_[2023]_UGIC_109_(11_December_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.