Wakilii

Rwakoma v Makerere University & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 153 OF 2014 & APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2017)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 262 · 2019 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging retirement benefit payments and eviction from official residence
Decision
Application partly allowed; contempt finding made against second respondent with fine imposed; verification of retirement benefits and determination of repatriation costs remitted to the university

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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 court dismissed the applicant's claim for benefits under the In-House Retirement Benefits Scheme (IHRBS) on the ground that she had not completed ten years of service by the scheme's closure date of 31 March 2009. The court directed the university to verify whether DAP and University scheme benefits were accurately paid and, if not, to pay any shortfall within one month. The court found the second respondent in contempt for evicting the applicant in June 2017 in contravention of the court's consent order, and imposed a fine of UGX 5,000,000. The court declined to fix a specific amount for repatriation costs, leaving this determination to the university's Human Resource office.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; contempt finding made against second respondent with fine imposed; verification of retirement benefits and determination of repatriation costs remitted to the university

Facts

The applicant was employed by Makerere University in December 1999 as Deputy University Secretary (Administration) and retired on 30 April 2012 upon attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60 years. She received benefits under the Deposit Administration Plan (DAP) and the University Retirement Benefits Scheme totalling UGX 54,396,107 on 6 November 2012. The applicant claimed entitlement to benefits under the In-House Retirement Benefits Scheme (IHRBS) and alleged that her retirement benefits were incorrectly calculated. She also claimed repatriation costs to her home district. On 15 September 2014, the university directed her to vacate her official residence within two weeks. A consent order was made on 14 October 2014 maintaining the applicant in the house pending disposal of the judicial review application. The main cause was dismissed for want of prosecution on 1 June 2017 but reinstated on 14 June 2017. Between 17 and 21 June 2017, the second respondent evicted the applicant from her residence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was entitled to benefits under the In-House Retirement Benefits Scheme (IHRBS).
  2. Whether the applicant's eviction from her official residence during the pendency of the proceedings constituted contempt of court.
  3. Whether the applicant was entitled to repatriation costs and, if so, in what amount.
  4. Whether the applicant's retirement benefits under the Deposit Administration Plan (DAP) and the University Retirement Benefits Scheme were accurately calculated and paid.

Orders

  • Application for IHRBS benefits dismissed.
  • First Respondent's Human Resource office directed to verify accuracy of DAP and University scheme payments to the applicant and, if any monies were not paid, to pay the same within one month.
  • Second Respondent found in contempt of court and directed to pay a fine of UGX 5,000,000 into court.
  • Determination of repatriation costs referred to the first Respondent's Human Resource office.
  • No order for damages.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Retirement Benefits — Qualification for Employer-Funded Pension Schemes
Where an employer-funded retirement benefits scheme requires a minimum period of service for qualification and is closed on a specified date, an employee qualifies for benefits under the scheme only if they have completed the minimum service period by the closure date.
Employment & Labour — Retirement Benefits — Legitimate Expectation
A legitimate expectation to retirement benefits under a scheme arises only where an employee has met the qualifying criteria at the time of the scheme's closure; falling short of the qualifying service period at closure does not give rise to legitimate expectation.
Administrative Law — Contempt of Court — Breach of Consent Orders
Where a party takes action in contravention of a subsisting consent order maintaining the status quo, such action constitutes contempt of court and may attract a punitive fine.
Judicial Review — Scope — Review of Manner of Decision-Making
In judicial review, the court does not hear an appeal from the decision itself but reviews the manner in which the decision was made; judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, not whether the decision is right or wrong on the merits.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0045 of 2010)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Semwo Construction Company v Rukungiri District Local Government (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwakoma v Makerere University & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 153 OF 2014 & APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCD 262 (27 June 2019)
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.