Wakilii

Taremwa v New Times Express Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 142 of 2017)

Industrial Court · [2020] UGIC 24 · 2020 Claim Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from termination of employment
Decision
Claimant awarded total monetary relief of UGX 11,632,000 plus interest at 15% per annum from date of award until payment in full

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 termination without proper notice, reasons, or hearing constitutes unlawful termination under the Employment Act. Where an employee is retained beyond an initial redundancy notification date and continues performing duties, a subsequent redundancy notice delivered on the same day as termination does not satisfy statutory notice requirements. The claimant was awarded unpaid salary, severance allowance, payment in lieu of notice, and general damages totalling UGX 11,632,000 plus interest at 15% per annum.

Outcome

Claimant awarded total monetary relief of UGX 11,632,000 plus interest at 15% per annum from date of award until payment in full

Facts

Michael Taremwa was employed by New Times Express Ltd as a courier in August 2012 and promoted to supervisor in January 2013. He was assigned to a team delivering Umeme bills. When Umeme terminated its contract with the respondent in July 2016, a general redundancy notice was issued to affected staff with effect from 31 July 2016. The claimant was retained beyond that date and continued performing office duties. On 12 January 2017, the respondent wrote a redundancy notice addressed to the claimant but did not deliver it until 15 March 2017, the same day his employment was terminated with immediate effect. The respondent's witness testified that the notice was delayed because there was a prospect of retaining the project and the claimant was needed to maintain the office. At termination, the claimant was owed one month's salary of UGX 772,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated
  2. What remedies are available to the claimant

Orders

  • Claim succeeds.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 772,000 as unpaid salary.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 3,088,000 as severance allowance.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 772,000 as payment in lieu of notice.
  • Respondent to pay claimant UGX 7,000,000 as general damages.
  • All sums awarded to attract interest at 15% per annum from date of award until payment in full.
  • Prayer for untaken leave denied.
  • Prayer for compensatory order under Workers Compensation Act declined for lack of jurisdiction.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Termination of Employment — Notice Requirements — Redundancy
Where an employee is retained beyond the effective date of a general redundancy notification and continues performing duties for the employer, the employee is entitled to believe that his contract was not affected by the earlier notification and that he remains in employment. A subsequent redundancy notice delivered on the same day as termination does not satisfy the statutory notice requirement under Section 58(1) of the Employment Act.
Unlawful Termination — Elements
Termination without notice, termination without reasons in accordance with Section 68 of the Employment Act, and termination without a hearing in accordance with Section 66 of the Employment Act, in total amount to unlawful termination.
Severance Allowance — Calculation
An employee who has been unlawfully terminated is entitled to severance allowance in accordance with Section 87 of the Employment Act, calculated at one month's pay for every year worked.
Leave — Payment in Lieu — Burden of Proof
In the absence of evidence that an employee applied for leave and was denied, the employee is not entitled to payment in lieu of untaken leave.
Workers Compensation — Jurisdiction
The Workers Compensation Act confers specific jurisdiction on magistrate's courts presided over by a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade 1. Where legislation gives specific jurisdiction to specific courts, the Industrial Court will decline to exercise concurrent jurisdiction under the Judicature Act unless there is sufficient reason to do so.
General Damages — Assessment — Unlawful Termination
General damages for unlawful termination constitute compensation for loss or inconvenience occasioned to the employee. In assessing quantum, the court takes judicial notice of the difficulty of obtaining employment in Uganda and the likelihood that an illegally terminated employee will remain unemployed for a considerable period.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mwaka v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute Claim No. 155 of 2014)
  • Kyazze Tucker v Busoga College Mwiri (Labour Dispute Claim No. 143 of 2016)
  • Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 002 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.

Taremwa_v_New_Times_Express_Ltd_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_No._142_of_2017)_[2020]_UGIC_24_(4_December_2020)
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.