Wakilii

Ojok and 87 Others v Torres Advanced Enterprises Solutions LLC (Labour Dispute Reference No. 24 of 2015)

Industrial Court · [2021] UGIC 18 · 2021 Award Entered for Claimants AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from termination of employment
Decision
Award entered in favour of claimants with remedies for unlawful termination including severance pay, general damages, payment in lieu of notice and leave, NSSF contributions, and interest

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 despite the respondent being a separate legal entity from Triple Canopy, the claimants were in continuous service under Employment Act s.83(4) because the respondent took over the business of providing local guard services to the US Embassy without properly terminating the claimants' prior contracts. The dismissal was unlawful as the respondent failed to show fundamental breach of contract under s.69(3) or provide reasons under s.68. The claimants were awarded payment in lieu of notice, severance pay calculated from their Triple Canopy employment date, general damages, and NSSF contributions.

Outcome

Award entered in favour of claimants with remedies for unlawful termination including severance pay, general damages, payment in lieu of notice and leave, NSSF contributions, and interest

Facts

The claimants were security guards employed by the respondent to provide local guard services to the US Embassy in Kampala. Prior to joining the respondent, some had worked for US Defence System LLC and then 3C International Limited (Triple Canopy). In July 2013, the US State Department awarded a new contract to the respondent. The claimants were informed of a transition from Triple Canopy to the respondent by midnight 15 October 2013. They were given new contracts dated 29 September 2013 stating that terminal benefits and leave days would be carried forward. The respondent claimed it advertised positions and interviewed applicants, but evidence of this was insufficient. The claimants were subsequently dismissed by the respondent, allegedly under Employment Act s.58(a) and s.69(3) for security protocol infringements, though no specific misconduct was proven.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimants were in continuous service between Triple Canopy (3C International Limited) and the respondent.
  2. Whether the claimants' dismissal was lawful.
  3. Whether the claimants were entitled to remedies claimed.

Orders

  • Award entered in favour of the claimants.
  • Payment in lieu of notice to all claimants as provided under Employment Act s.58 from date of employment by Triple Canopy.
  • Payment in lieu of leave for the first 12 months: 4 weeks' wages per claimant under Employment Act s.54.
  • Severance pay: one month's pay per year of work from date of employment with Triple Canopy to date of termination.
  • NSSF contributions to be paid into respective NSSF accounts of all claimants as shown in contribution amount column.
  • General damages of UGX 4,000,000 per claimant for unlawful termination.
  • Additional compensation of UGX 1,000,000 to five claimants dismissed on medical grounds for discrimination.
  • Interest of 15% per annum on all amounts awarded from date of award until payment in full.
  • Respondent to provide certificate of service to each claimant under Employment Act s.61.
  • Prayer for repatriation denied.
  • Prayer for compensatory order under Employment Act s.78 denied.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Continuous Service — Transfer of Business — Employment Act s.83(4)
Where a successor employer takes over employees from a former employer to perform the same work without terminating their existing contracts and without giving them time to take action before engaging them, there is a transfer of the whole or part of the business from the former employer to the successor, and consecutive periods of employment constitute continuous service under Employment Act s.83(4).
Continuous Service — Conduct Establishing Transfer
The mere fact of non-termination of employees by a former employer may not necessarily establish continuous service with a successor employer, but where there is no termination and the successor employer in the same business takes over the employees to do the same job without informing them about the fate of their previous contracts, there is an inevitable conclusion that the whole or part of the business has been transferred.
Summary Dismissal — Fundamental Breach — Employment Act s.69(3)
An employer is entitled to dismiss summarily under Employment Act s.69(3) only where the employee has by conduct indicated a fundamental breach of obligations arising under the contract of service. Without evidence showing how the employee fundamentally breached their duties, summary dismissal is not justified.
Termination — Notice Periods — Employment Act s.58 and s.68
Notice periods under Employment Act s.58 do not per se constitute lawful termination. Before termination, the employer must give reasons in accordance with s.68 as to why dismissal is contemplated. Notice periods do not constitute reasons as stipulated by s.68.
Payment in Lieu of Leave — Contractual Prohibition — Employment Act s.54
Where a contract illegally prohibits an employee from applying for annual leave during the first 12 months of employment in conflict with Employment Act s.54, the employee is entitled to payment in lieu of leave for that period as the illegal provision prevented them from exercising their statutory right.
Severance Pay — Continuous Service
Where employees are found to be in continuous service between successive employers and their termination is unlawful, they are entitled to severance pay of one month's pay per year of work calculated from the date of employment with the first employer in the continuous service chain to the date of termination.
Discrimination — Medical Dismissal Without Evidence
Where employees are dismissed on alleged medical grounds without a medical report or evidence from a medical practitioner declaring them unfit, and they had previously performed the same duties satisfactorily, such dismissal constitutes discrimination entitling the affected employees to compensation.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (8)

  • Uganda Local Government Association v Kibira and Others (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 26 of 2016)
  • Charles Lwanga v Bank of Uganda (Labour Dispute Claim No. 142 of 2014)
  • Benon H. Kanyangoga and Others v Bank of Uganda (Labour Dispute Claim No. 80 of 2014)
  • Florence Mufumba v UDB (Labour Dispute Claim No. 130 of 2014)
  • Charles Abigaba Lwanga v Bank of Uganda (Labour Dispute Claim No. 142 of 2014)
  • Okou R. Constant v Stanbic Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 12 of 2017)
  • Kangaho Silver v Attorney General (Labour Dispute Claim No. 276 of 2014)
  • Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 2 of 2015)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Ojok_and_87_Others_v_Torres_Advanced_Enterprises_Solutions_LLC_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_No._24_of_2015)_[2021]_UGIC_18_(14_May_2021)
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.