Wakilii

Ndaula and Another v PostBank Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 161 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2025] UGIC 2 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from unsuccessful mediation of unfair and unlawful dismissal claims following redundancy terminations
Decision
Claimants' terminations declared unfair and unlawful; general damages awarded to both claimants with interest; no additional severance pay or costs awarded

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 claimants' terminations for redundancy were unlawful due to procedural failures. The employer failed to properly notify the Commissioner for Labour as required by Section 80 of the Employment Act, and failed to provide adequate individual notice of impending redundancy to the claimants. The court found the termination substantively unfair because the process lacked transparency and the claimants were not fairly treated in the consultative process. The court awarded general damages but declined to award additional severance pay, aggravated damages, or costs.

Outcome

Claimants' terminations declared unfair and unlawful; general damages awarded to both claimants with interest; no additional severance pay or costs awarded

Facts

The 1st Claimant was employed by PostBank Uganda Limited as a risk analyst from December 2017 at an annual salary of UGX 21,143,412. The 2nd Claimant was employed from April 2016 as an operational risk analyst and served in various positions including Acting Head of Risk. In 2020, the Respondent underwent an institutional review resulting in restructuring. The 1st Claimant applied unsuccessfully for two new positions and was declared redundant on 24 August 2021 with seven days' notice. The 2nd Claimant applied unsuccessfully for the position of Manager Operational Risk and Financial Crimes and was declared redundant on 10 May 2021 with 21 days' notice. Both claimants were paid severance pay, three months' salary in lieu of notice, leave arrears, pensions, and issued certificates of service. The claimants lodged a complaint of unlawful and unfair termination with the Labour Officer on 22 November 2021. Mediation was unsuccessful and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court on 27 June 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimants' termination was lawful?
  2. Whether the Claimants are entitled to a bonus for 2020?
  3. What other remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • It is declared that the Claimants were unfairly and unlawfully terminated from employment by the Respondent.
  • The Respondent shall pay the 1st Claimant UGX 11,400,000 in general damages.
  • The Respondent shall pay the 2nd Claimant UGX 32,800,596 in general damages.
  • Interest at 14% per annum shall run on the general damages from the date of this award until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Redundancy Termination — Procedural Requirements — Notification to Commissioner for Labour
An employer who intends to terminate not less than ten employees within three months for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature must notify the Commissioner for Labour in writing of the reasons for terminations, the number and category of workers likely to be affected, and the period in which they are to be carried out, as required by Section 80(1)(b) of the Employment Act 2006.
Redundancy Termination — Notice Requirements — Individual Notice to Employees
A town hall meeting discussing institutional review does not constitute sufficient legal notice of impending redundancy to individual employees. The law requires written notice to employees of an intended redundancy, separate and distinct from a notice of termination. A letter declaring an employee redundant is a termination notice, not a notice of impending redundancy.
Redundancy Termination — Substantive Fairness — Consultative Process
Procedural and substantive fairness in a redundancy termination are inexplicably intertwined. The court's inquiry into substantive fairness concerns how the decision to render an employee redundant was reached, not why. The consultative process must be fair, transparent, objective, and involve the employee. An employer ought not to draw a list of targeted employees and then merely meet procedural thresholds to justify termination.
Evidence — Admission of Documents — Submission Stage
Documents that appear for the first time at the submission stage, without having been properly presented, tested in cross-examination, and admitted during trial, are against the rules of trial practice and inimical to the minimum level of collegiality expected of trial advocacy, fair game, and the right to a fair hearing. Such documents must be struck off the record.
Remedies — General Damages — Assessment in Redundancy Cases
Where an employer has paid terminal benefits including severance pay and payment in lieu of notice in a redundancy termination, such payments constitute mitigation of the effects of the redundancy and result in a diminution of general damages. However, where the employer fails to provide the statutory four weeks' notice of redundancy, the employee remains entitled to additional general damages despite having received terminal benefits.
Remedies — Severance Pay — Unfair Termination
Section 86 of the Employment Act does not provide for severance pay in cases of unlawful or unfair termination. Severance pay is available only where an employee is unfairly dismissed, dies in service, terminates for physical incapacity not occasioned by serious and wilful misconduct, is terminated because of death or insolvency of the employer, or has a contract terminated by a labour officer following inability or failure to pay wages.
Remedies — Aggravated Damages — Requirements
Aggravated damages are awarded where the employer's conduct in termination is characterized by callousness, indifference, and lack of compassion that degrades the employee. Where post-termination processes including issuance of certificates of service, exit interviews, and processing of terminal benefits do not reflect an indifferent and callous approach, aggravated damages will not be awarded.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (26)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndaula_and_Another_v_PostBank_Uganda_Limited_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_161_of_2022)_[2025]_UGIC_2_(16_January_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.