Wakilii

Prof . Baryamureeba v St. Augustine International University Limited and Another (Civil Suit 295 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 100 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff — Partial Relief AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and unpaid allowances
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with reduced award; defendants ordered to pay UGX 10,000,000 in unpaid allowances, UGX 5,000,000 in general damages, interest, and taxed costs

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. 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 court held that the plaintiff was employed under a contract of service by both defendants, not as an independent contractor. The engagement as Chairperson of the University Council, with periodic remuneration and sufficient control, satisfied the essential elements of employment. However, the plaintiff had signed a full and final settlement acknowledgement for UGX 30,000,000 covering services up to June 2017. For the period July 2017 to May 2018, the plaintiff was entitled to UGX 10,000,000, not the UGX 82,500,000 claimed. General damages of UGX 5,000,000 were awarded for inconvenience suffered.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with reduced award; defendants ordered to pay UGX 10,000,000 in unpaid allowances, UGX 5,000,000 in general damages, interest, and taxed costs

Facts

In August 2016, the plaintiff was appointed Chairperson of the University Council of the 1st defendant university at an agreed monthly retainer of UGX 5,000,000. The 2nd defendant, a director and shareholder of the 1st defendant, approached the plaintiff based on his expertise in running educational institutions. The plaintiff rendered services from August 2016 to May 2018. The defendants paid fees through December 2017, then ceased payments despite repeated requests. On 12 June 2017, the plaintiff signed an acknowledgement that he received UGX 30,000,000 as full settlement for services to date and that no more money was owed. Despite this, email evidence showed the plaintiff continued to render services until May 2018 when he resigned. The plaintiff claimed total outstanding dues of UGX 82,500,000 for 16.5 months of unpaid work.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff was employed by the 1st Defendant and/or the 2nd Defendant under a contract of service?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies claimed, including unpaid allowances and general damages?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally.
  • Payment of UGX 10,000,000 being the outstanding sum due to the Plaintiff.
  • Payment of UGX 5,000,000 being general damages to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest on the principal sum (UGX 10,000,000) at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Interest on the general damages (UGX 5,000,000) at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Taxed costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract of Service — Distinction from Contract for Services — Tests for Employment Relationship
A contract of employment exists where three conditions are fulfilled: the servant agrees to provide work and skill in return for remuneration; the servant agrees to be subject to the employer's control in a sufficient degree to make one party master and the other servant; and the other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service. An engagement as Chairperson of a University Council with periodic remuneration and defined scope of work by the employer constitutes a contract of service, not a contract for services, even where the employee exercises expertise and provides consultancy advice.
Jurisdiction — High Court Original Jurisdiction — Ouster by Employment Legislation
The High Court retains unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139 of the Constitution over labour disputes. For a statutory provision to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it must do so expressly or by clear implication. Provisions in the Employment Act 2006 and Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 that make the Labour Officer the court of first instance in labour disputes are incapable of ousting the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction and are intended only to oust jurisdiction of other courts and tribunals with limited jurisdiction.
Preliminary Objections — Challenging Jurisdiction — Timing and Procedure
Under Order 9 rule 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, failure to follow the prescribed procedure for disputing jurisdiction results in the defence being treated as a submission to the jurisdiction of the court. A preliminary objection to jurisdiction raised after closure of the hearing and during final submissions, without following the prescribed procedure, is improperly timed and constitutes a submission to jurisdiction, although the court may still address the jurisdictional point on its merits.
Settlement Agreements — Full and Final Settlement — Effect of Written Acknowledgement
A written acknowledgement by a party that he received a specified sum as full settlement for services rendered and that no more money is owed is clear and unequivocal. In the absence of evidence showing fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of capacity, failure of consideration, mistake, or other exceptional circumstances vitiating the instrument, oral evidence seeking to add to, vary, or contradict the written settlement is inadmissible under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. Such a settlement binds the party only to the date specified in the acknowledgement.
Employment Claims — Director as Agent — Joint and Several Liability
Where a director and shareholder of a company personally contacts, negotiates with, and is responsible for payments to employees, that director acts both in his personal capacity and as an officer and agent of the company. By such conduct, the director may be held jointly and severally liable with the company as the employer of the employee.
Breach of Contract — General Damages — Assessment Principles
General damages are implied in every breach of contract and are compensatory in nature, intended to restore the aggrieved party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. In assessing general damages for breach of an employment contract, the court considers the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff, and the nature and extent of the injury, including the inconvenience of pursuing payment for services rendered.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (13)

  • C & 11 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suits No. 278-296 of 2013)
  • David Kayondo v The Co-operative Bank (U) Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1091 of 1992)
  • Kameke Growers Cooperative Society Limited v North Bukedi Co.operative Union (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1994)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Limited & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Waga B. Francis v The Chief Administrative Officer Maracha District & Anor [2017] UGHCCD 153
  • Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
  • Specioza Kalungi & Others v Attorney General & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 63 of 2008)
  • General Industries (U) Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1998)
  • DSS Motors Ltd v Afri Tours and Travels (High Court Civil Suit No. 12 of 2003)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305

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.

Prof . Baryamureeba v St. Augustine International University Limited and Another (Civil Suit 295 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 100 (23 May 2024)
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.