National Insurance Corporation Ltd v Lukoooya Sam M (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal. It held that Appendix 6(A) of the 2004 Staff Regulations, which conferred terminal benefits only on staff retiring at mandatory or early age or on medical grounds, did not extend to employees who voluntarily resigned, and the clear wording could not be rewritten to fill a perceived gap. Past payments or admissions in pleadings could not create a contractual right absent from the contract. The trial judge was bound by the Court's earlier Mujuni decision on identical provisions and erred in departing from it. Benefits could not accrue from 1977 under the 1988 Regulations that made no such provision, and the 2009 amendment operated prospectively. The High Court judgment was set aside and the suit dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the respondent's suit dismissed

Facts

The respondent was employed by the appellant from 10 January 1977 and served continuously for thirty-three and a half years until he voluntarily resigned on 5 August 2010. His service was initially governed by the 1988 Staff Regulations, which made no provision for terminal benefits. The 2004 Staff Regulations introduced, at Appendix 6(A), a terminal-benefits formula with a multiplier of one, two, or three months' gross salary for staff retiring at mandatory or early age or on medical grounds; Regulation 4 dealt with resignation and cross-referenced Appendix 6(A). In August 2009 the appellant's Board amended the formula to a single month's multiplier for resigning staff with ten or more years' service. On resignation the appellant paid the respondent UGX 111,631,108 using the new formula. The respondent sued claiming UGX 298,485,000 under the Appendix 6(A) multiplier of three. The High Court found for the respondent, holding Appendix 6(A) applicable, the 2009 amendment unlawfully retrospective, and benefits calculable from 1977 under Section 31 of the PERD Act.

Issues

1. Whether the grounds of appeal were too general and offended Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether Appendix 6(A) of the Staff Regulations, 2004 applied to the calculation of the terminal benefits of an employee who voluntarily resigned.
3. Whether the trial judge was bound by the Court's earlier decision in National Insurance Corporation Ltd v Lillian B. Mujuni and erred in declining to follow it.
4. Whether the respondent's terminal benefits could be calculated from 1977 by reference to Section 31 of the PERD Act.
5. Whether the 2009 amendment of the terminal-benefits formula was unlawful for being retrospective.

Orders

• The Appeal is allowed.
• The Judgment and all consequent Orders of the High Court dated 7th September 2017 in High Court Civil Suit No. 179 of 2011 are set aside.
• The Respondent's suit in the High Court is dismissed.
• Each Party to bear their own costs here and in the trial Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Public Enterprise Reform and Divestiture Act s.31
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 86(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Frederick J.R. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123
• Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
• Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses Musambwa & The Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
• National Insurance Corporation Ltd v Lillian B. Mujuni (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2010)
• Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2002)
• Sir Ronald Sinclair in Captain Henry Candy v Caspair Air Charther Ltd, 195 EACA 139
• Paul K. Ssemogerere and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Nganda Joweria v Allen V.R. Stanley Secondary School (Labour Dispute Reference No.92 of 2020)

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