Omunyoko Akol Johnson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No 06 of 2012)

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

Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court held that reinstatement of an unlawfully dismissed public servant is discretionary, not automatic, and was rightly refused given the 17-year lapse and changed circumstances. The Employment Act 2006 could not apply retrospectively to a 1998 dismissal, nor did it govern statutory public employment. The trial judge erred in making a single omnibus award; special damages (which must be specifically pleaded and proved) and general damages must be assessed separately. The Court substituted awards of Shs 300,000,000 special damages, Shs 19,414,874 salary in lieu of leave, and Shs 150,000,000 general damages. Interest on special damages runs from dismissal at 20%, and on general damages from judgment at the court rate. Exemplary damages were properly refused.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; damages awards substituted and increased, reinstatement refused, with the majority awarding lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Facts

The appellant was recruited into the Public Service as a Foreign Service Officer in 1988 and posted to Uganda's Embassy in Beijing in 1993. In March 1997 he was recalled to Uganda but delayed departure because the Ministry lacked funds to ship his effects. He was repatriated in October 1997, interdicted on 4 March 1998, and dismissed by the Public Service Commission on 6 June 1998 without following the procedure in the Public Service Regulations, contrary to the rules of natural justice. He sued the Attorney General seeking declarations that the dismissal was void, reinstatement, and damages. The High Court held the dismissal unlawful but declined reinstatement, awarding an omnibus Shs 180,000,000 for general and aggravated damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. He alleged arrest, torture and trespass to property by Ugandan officials acting with Chinese police, claims the trial judge disbelieved. The dispute on second appeal centred on reinstatement, the proper assessment of special and general damages, exemplary damages, and interest.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to declare the appellant's dismissal ultra vires, null and void.
2. Whether the courts below erred in declining to order the appellant's reinstatement in the Public Service.
3. Whether the Employment Act 2006 applied to the appellant's pre-2006 statutory public employment.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in making an omnibus award covering general and aggravated damages instead of separately assessed special and general damages.
5. Whether exemplary or punitive damages ought to have been awarded.
6. Whether interest was properly awarded on the damages, and from what date and at what rate.

Orders

• Appeal partially succeeds; part of the Court of Appeal decision set aside and substituted.
• Appellant awarded special damages of Shs 300,000,000 for arrears of salary over 26 years of service.
• Appellant awarded Shs 19,414,874 as salary in lieu of leave for 26 years.
• Interest on the special damages awarded at 20% from the date of dismissal until payment in full.
• Appellant awarded Shs 150,000,000 as general damages, with interest at the court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
• Appellant awarded 50% of the costs in the Supreme Court and the courts below.
• Trial court awards confirmed: Shs 495,084 withheld salary during interdiction; Shs 1,500,000 transport allowance; US$90 (Speke Hotel two nights); US$1,372 (air ticket for Francis Aturia).

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Employment Act 2006 s.71
• Employment Act Cap.219
• Constitution of Uganda art.173
• Constitution of Uganda art.27(1)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda art.38(1)
• Constitution of Uganda art.40
• Public Service Act
• Public Service Regulations reg.36
• Pension Act
• Supreme Court Practice Direction (No.2 of 2005) on Submission of Written Arguments

Cases cited (11)

• Federal Civil Service Commission & Others vs Laoye (1990) LRC 482
• Kakumu Perez v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2003)
• Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
• Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
• Kifumunte vs Uganda (1999) 2 E.A. 127
• R vs East Berkshire Health Authority Ex parte Walsh (1984) 3 All.ER 425
• Ridge vs Baldwin (1964) AC 63
• Rookes vs Barnard (1964) AC 1131
• Cassell & Co Ltd vs Broome (1972) A.C. 1027
• Patel vs Benbros Motors Tanganyika Ltd. EACA No 5 of 1968
• Kabu Auctioneers & Court Bailiffs v J K Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2009)

Cases citing this judgment (14)

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.

• Nakalanzi Rashidah and Others v Finicon Group (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 79 of 2020)
• Lutaaya and Others v DFCU Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Civil Suit 616 of 2020)
• Standard Chartered Bank v Makoko (Civil Appeal 307 of 2020)
• Vehicle & Equipment Leasing Limited v Strogen Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit 194 of 2017)
• Kaggwa v Ntaganda (Civil Suit 714 of 2017)
• Mulondo v Namara and Another (Civil Suit 184 of 2017)
• Mutumba v Lubowa (Civil Suit 676 of 2014)
• Emuna and 3 Others v Okello (Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2018)
• MTN Uganda Limited v GQ Saatchi & Saatchi Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 0098 of 2017)
• SBI International Holdings (U) Ltd v Cof International Co. Limited (Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2014)
• SBI International Holdings (U) Limited v COF International Co. Limited (Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2014)
• Nyakaana v National Environment Management Authority and Others (Constitutional Appeal 5 of 2011) followed
• Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 6 of 2012)
• Semwanga v Kwizera (Misc. Application No. 412 of 2013)

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