Ndagire and 2 Others v Makerere University and Another (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2017)
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.
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 High Court held that Makerere University Council resolutions approving new salary structures for secretaries were binding on the university and that the university breached those resolutions by failing to implement them transparently, recruiting externally before considering existing staff, and treating plaintiffs with bias. The court applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation to order implementation of the salary adjustments from the date the suit was filed and awarded general damages for mental anguish and frustration caused by prolonged uncertainty.
Outcome
Plaintiffs' suit substantially allowed with orders for implementation of salary structure and payment of general damages
Facts
The plaintiffs were secretaries employed by Makerere University. In 2010, the University Council passed a resolution in its 119th meeting approving new salary structures for secretaries to be implemented from the 2011/2012 financial year. The university management failed to implement the resolution despite reminders. The plaintiffs submitted their academic qualifications for verification, which were verified and they were placed on a list compiled by the Directorate of Human Resources showing adjusted salary structures. However, the university continued to run parallel salary structures, subjected existing staff to interviews without providing results or feedback, and recruited new staff externally contrary to the resolution which prohibited new recruitment before existing staff were considered. The plaintiffs brought suit in 2017 in a representative capacity on behalf of themselves and 20 other secretaries seeking implementation of the resolution and payment of arrears.
Issues
- Whether the resolutions approved by the 2nd Defendant in its 119th Council meeting in respect of the structures for secretaries employed by the 1st Defendant are binding upon the Defendants?
- Whether the Plaintiffs are among the secretaries employed by the 1st Defendant supposed to be considered under the new structures for secretaries employed by the 1st Defendant as approved by the 119th Council meeting of the 2nd Defendant?
- Whether the resolutions approved by the 2nd Defendant in its 119th Council meeting in respect of the structures for secretaries employed by the 1st Defendant were breached by the Defendants?
- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought?
Orders
- Declaration that the resolution of the 2nd Defendant approving the new structures for secretaries is binding on the 1st Defendant.
- The 23 persons subject of this suit are deemed to have been appointed in their respective positions under the new structure and shall be paid the salary that other holders of such positions are paid or entitled to under the current salary structure of the Defendants, with effect from 2nd November 2017.
- General damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to each of the Plaintiffs and 20 others.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.103
- Civil Procedure Act s.27
Cases cited (6)
- Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
- Charles Acire v M Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
- Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
- Alex Agandru v Etoma Francis (High Court Civil Suit No. 7 of 2011) [2018] UGHCLD 32
- Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] 1 AC 374
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.