Wakilii

Said Kiriggwajjo v Union Logistics Uganda Limited [2026] UGIC 79

Industrial Court · 2026 Claim Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference to the Industrial Court arising from a labour office complaint alleging unlawful and unfair dismissal
Decision
Dismissal declared unfair and unlawful; Claimant awarded severance pay, notice pay, general damages and costs; claims for terminal benefits of UGX 94,781,460 and loss of earnings of UGX 150,000,000 rejected

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 Industrial Court held that an employer who requires an employee to surrender his tools of work — truck keys, uniform and safety equipment — and thereafter fails to recall him, give reasons, or hold a disciplinary hearing, commits a repudiatory breach amounting to dismissal, even where the employee does not resign and so cannot plead constructive dismissal. An employer pleading abscondment bears the burden of proving documented, reasonable efforts to contact the employee; bare assertions of unreachability, unsupported by call logs, notices to show cause or summonses, fail. The dismissal was declared unfair and unlawful. Unparticularised lump-sum terminal benefits and speculative loss of future earnings were rejected, but statutory severance, notice pay, general damages equivalent to one year's salary, and costs were awarded.

Outcome

Dismissal declared unfair and unlawful; Claimant awarded severance pay, notice pay, general damages and costs; claims for terminal benefits of UGX 94,781,460 and loss of earnings of UGX 150,000,000 rejected

Facts

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, a supply chain company, as a truck driver from 17 July 2013 at a monthly salary of UGX 464,615. In the first week of April 2017, while transporting lubricant drums from Kampala to Kibali in the Democratic Republic of Congo, two drums went missing after URA officials at Luwero Weighbridge found the seals broken. The Claimant reported the loss to the Police and to the Respondent's Transport Officer; URA resealed the truck and he delivered the remaining consignment before returning the vehicle to the Respondent's Kololo premises. On 6 May 2017, on the Human Resource Manager's direction, he was required to surrender the truck keys, uniform, helmet, safety shoes and other company property, remove his belongings and leave, without being given any reason. He was never issued a suspension letter, notice to show cause, invitation to a disciplinary hearing, termination letter or certificate of service, and was never recalled to work. He was instead advised to resign and re-apply, which he declined. The Respondent denied dismissing him, asserting that he absconded before investigations into the missing drums and its insurance claim could proceed, but produced no records of any follow-up efforts.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent unlawfully and unfairly dismissed the Claimant.
  2. Whether the Claimant absconded from duty as the driver of truck No. UAK 564G.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration is made that the Claimant's dismissal from employment was both unfair and unlawful.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 1,805,554/= being legally due severance allowance.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 464,615/= being payment in lieu of notice.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant UGX 5,575,380/= as general damages.
  • The Respondent shall bear the costs of this claim.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Unfair Dismissal — Burden and Standard of Proof
In a complaint of unfair dismissal the burden of proving that a dismissal occurred rests on the employee under section 69(6) of the Employment Act 2006, while the employer bears the burden of proving and justifying the reason for the dismissal under section 67; both burdens are discharged on a balance of probabilities.
Employment & Labour — Lawful Dismissal — Procedural and Substantive Fairness
A lawful dismissal requires both procedural fairness, comprising written notice of the allegations, adequate time to prepare, and a hearing before an impartial committee under section 65(1) of the Employment Act 2006, and substantive fairness, comprising a credible, well-founded and verifiable reason showing a fundamental breach of the employment contract.
Employment & Labour — Dismissal — Removal of Tools of Work as Repudiatory Breach
Where an employer strips an employee of the tools of work necessary to perform the job and thereafter fails to recall him, provide work, give reasons or commence a disciplinary process, it breaches its duties under sections 39(1) and 44(3) of the Employment Act 2006 and commits a repudiatory breach amounting to a dismissal, notwithstanding that no notice of termination was issued.
Employment & Labour — Constructive Dismissal — Requirement of Resignation
A claim of constructive dismissal cannot succeed where the employee has not resigned; an employee who remains in employment but is denied work must instead establish an actual dismissal arising from the employer's repudiatory conduct.
Evidence — Proof of Abscondment — Employer's Duty to Show Documented Follow-Up
An employer who alleges abscondment must prove that the employee secretly or wilfully deserted employment and that reasonable, particularised steps were taken to contact him; general assertions that the employee was unreachable, unsupported by call logs, letters, notices to show cause, summonses or internal correspondence, do not discharge that burden.
Damages & Quantum — Terminal Benefits — Requirement of Pleading and Strict Proof
Terminal benefits are contractual and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved in the manner of special damages; an unparticularised lump sum thrown at the court, without apportionment between severance, overtime or public holiday pay, will be rejected.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages for Unlawful Dismissal — Assessment Relative to Earnings
General damages for unlawful dismissal are discretionary and compensate non-pecuniary loss, assessed by reference to the employee's age, length of service, salary, employability and the manner of dismissal; awards in earlier cases are relative to the claimant's own earnings and an award approximating one year's salary may be appropriate, while claims for loss of future earnings are speculative and will not be granted.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (30)

  • [2023] UGCA 97
  • [2015] KECA 394 (KLR)
  • Byanju v Board of Governors St. Augustine College Wakiso
  • Tibenkana v London Distillers(U) Limited
  • [2024] UGHC 478
  • [2015] UGHCKD 50
  • Kimbugwe v Kiboko Enterprises Limited
  • Achiro v Uganda Land Alliance
  • Nalule Gloria v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited
  • Bwengye Herbert v Ecobank (U) Ltd
  • Nasuuna v Equity Bank (U) Ltd
  • Elwayu Robert v Kabira Country Club
  • [2015] UGHCCD 15
  • Dr. Etwop Patrick v Medical Teams International
  • [2020] UGCA 88
  • Granada Hotels Uganda Limited v Tayssiir Zereli
  • [2015] 1 SCR 612
  • Ahimbisibwe v Holy Family Virika Hospital Limited
  • Ejong Judith v Makerere Business Institute
  • Aguti and Another v Crown Beverages Limited
  • [2012] UGCA 3
  • Ekemu v Stanbic Bank Uganda
  • Muhindo v ESCO Uganda Limited
  • Kabagambe v Post Bank Uganda Limited
  • [2026] UGIC 21
  • Akiror v International Food Policy Research Institute
  • [2023] UGSC 58
  • Peter Katongole v Airtel Uganda Limited
  • [2025] UGCA 290
  • Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Said Kiriggwajjo v Union Logistics Uganda Limited [2026] UGIC 79 (17 July 2026)
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.