Wakilii

Nakiwa Victoria v Nice House of Plastics (Labour Dispute No. 99 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2025] UGIC 79 · 2025 Claim Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance labour dispute claim for unfair dismissal and statutory remedies
Decision
Claimant's claim allowed; respondent ordered to pay statutory remedies and 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

Held that the claimant was unlawfully dismissed both procedurally and substantively. The employer failed to comply with section 65(1) and (2) of the Employment Act by not particularising the allegations of fraud prior to the disciplinary hearing, not providing an investigation report, and not affording the claimant a fair opportunity to defend herself. The employer also failed to prove the alleged negligence and gross misconduct on a balance of probability. The claimant was awarded payment in lieu of notice, severance pay, unpaid salary, general damages, and punitive damages.

Outcome

Claimant's claim allowed; respondent ordered to pay statutory remedies and damages

Facts

The claimant was employed by the respondent from 2 March 2011 as a storekeeper and rose to the position of Receivables Accountant, earning UGX 1,400,000 per month. On 30 July 2020, she was abruptly locked out of the work system, her computer was confiscated by police, and she was placed on investigative suspension without notice or particulars of the allegations against her. On 5 August 2020, she was invited to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 12 August 2020 but held on 26 August 2020. She was accused of fraud but the particulars were only provided on the day of the hearing. She was asked to provide additional information within 5 days despite having no access to the work system or computer. She eventually provided the information but was dismissed on 23 September 2020 for alleged negligence, breach of duty of care, falsifying records, and causing loss of UGX 54,447,767. No investigation report was provided to her, and she was not given an opportunity to respond to the additional information she had submitted.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed?
  2. Whether there are any remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Claimant was unlawfully dismissed by the Respondent.
  • The Claimant is awarded UGX 2,800,000 as payment in lieu of notice.
  • The Claimant is awarded UGX 12,600,000 as severance allowance.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 1,400,000 for the 2 months during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
  • The Claimant is awarded UGX 20,000,000 as general damages.
  • The Claimant is awarded UGX 2,000,000 as punitive damages.
  • The monetary awards in orders 2, 3, and 4 shall carry interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing in the Industrial Court until payment in full.
  • General and punitive damages shall carry interest of 18% per annum from the date of this award until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs is made.

Rules and key headnotes

Unfair Dismissal — Procedural Fairness — Right to Fair Hearing
Before an employer can terminate an employee on grounds of misconduct or poor performance, the employer must explain to the employee the reason for the contemplated dismissal and give the employee an opportunity to defend himself or herself, as required by section 65(1) and (2) of the Employment Act and guaranteed by Article 42 of the Constitution.
Unfair Dismissal — Fair Hearing Requirements — Ebiju Test
A fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings requires: (1) notice of allegations served with sufficient time to prepare a defence; (2) the notice must clearly set out the allegations and the employee's rights at the oral hearing, including the right to respond orally or in writing, to be accompanied, and to cross-examine witnesses or call witnesses; and (3) the employee must be given a chance to appear and present his case before an impartial committee.
Unfair Dismissal — Investigative Suspension — Burden of Proof
Where an employer places an employee on investigative suspension, there must be an investigation and proof of an investigation report, which should be communicated to the employee as the basis of commencing a disciplinary process. The findings of the investigation are the grounds for the contemplated dismissal which must be made known to the accused. The burden to prove the reasons for dismissal or substantive fairness lies on the employer.
Unfair Dismissal — Negligence as Misconduct — Proof Required
Where an employer alleges negligence on the part of an employee, the employer must state the elements of failure and prove them on a balance of probability. Negligence is based on the duty of care arising from the terms and conditions of employment. The employer must demonstrate with credible evidence that the employee deliberately refused to perform duties or performed them carelessly and incorrectly, involving a significant departure from essential terms of employment which led to substantial loss.
Remedies — Severance Pay — Unlawful Dismissal
Under section 86 of the Employment Act, where an employee has been in the employment of an employer for 6 continuous months or more and it is established that he or she was unlawfully dismissed, the employee is entitled to an award of severance pay calculated at one month's salary for every year served where there is no agreed formula.
Remedies — General Damages — Unlawful Dismissal
An employee who is unlawfully terminated is entitled to an award of general damages in addition to the remedies prescribed under the Employment Act. General damages are compensatory in nature and are intended to return the aggrieved party to as near as possible in monetary terms to the position the claimant was in if the wrong complained of had not been occasioned.
Remedies — Punitive Damages — Egregious Conduct
Punitive damages are awarded in addition to general damages to compensate the injured person and to punish, deter, and express the court's outrage at the defendant's egregious, high-handed, malicious, vindictive, oppressive, or malicious conduct. The manner in which an employee is treated during dismissal proceedings may entitle the employee to an award of punitive damages.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (15)

  • Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Limited v Nassanga (Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2021)
  • Alex Akankwasa v Equity Bank (Labour Dispute No. 302 of 2014)
  • Ebiju v UMEME Ltd (Civil Suit No. 133 of 2012)
  • Ebiju James v UMEME Ltd (Civil Suit No. 133 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Limited v Constant R. Okou (Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2020)
  • Hot Loaf Bakery Limited v Ndugutse and 28 Others (Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2015)
  • African Field Epidemiology Network (AFNET) v Peter Waswa Kityaba (Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2017)
  • Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank (Labour Dispute No. 2 of 2015)
  • Florence Mufumba v Uganda Development Bank (Labour Dispute No. 138 of 2014)
  • Kapio Simon v Centenary Bank (Labour Dispute No. 300 of 2015)
  • Muwanga v Stanbic Bank (Labour Dispute No. 21 of 2014)
  • Stanbic Bank v Kakooza Mutale (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
  • Obonyo and Anor V Municipal Council Kisumu 1971 EA 96
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awdi and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
  • Edace Micheal v Watoto Child Care Ministries (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 16 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakiwa_Victoria_v_Nice_House_of_Plastics_(Labour_Dispute_No._99_of_2021)_[2025]_UGIC_79_(10_October_2025)
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.