Wakilii

The Registered Trustees Of The Centre For St John Ambulance Association v John Kintu (Civil Suit 219 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHCCD 5 · 1994 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for eviction, accounting, mesne profits, and enforcement of summary dismissal; defendant filed counter-claim challenging dismissal and claiming damages and declarations
Decision
Defendant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct; evicted from premises; ordered to pay mesne profits and hand over property

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

Held that a body corporate created under the Trustees Incorporation Act does not require a resolution by registered trustees to institute legal proceedings where the body's constitution vests management authority in another organ. The Council properly exercised authority to sue when implementing its summary dismissal decision. Held further that summary dismissal for gross misconduct including insubordination was justified where the defendant, an executive secretary, usurped Council authority by unilaterally appointing Council members. The dismissal was lawful. Plaintiff entitled to eviction order and mesne profits for wrongful occupation of premises at UGX 300,000 per month from date of dismissal.

Outcome

Defendant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct; evicted from premises; ordered to pay mesne profits and hand over property

Facts

The defendant was employed as Executive Secretary by the plaintiff organisation from 1965. On 16 March 1993, the Council summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct including insubordination. The defendant had refused to follow Council instructions, wrote to the Chairman thanking him for services and stating a new Council was being appointed, and unilaterally appointed Council members including Mr Kiyimba. The defendant refused to hand over organisation property and vacate premises at Plot 29 Bombo Road, transforming office space into residence and retaining keys to a flat previously occupied by Uganda Airlines. The plaintiff filed suit seeking eviction, accounting for UGX 5,700,000, payment of UGX 4,278,836 in utility bills, mesne profits, and handover of property. The defendant counter-claimed alleging wrongful dismissal, bias, denial of hearing, and seeking declarations, injunction, and special damages of UGX 4,690,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was properly instituted
  2. Whether the Council of the Order of St John Ambulance, Uganda was competent to dismiss the defendant
  3. Whether the dismissal of the defendant was wrongful or in breach of contract
  4. Whether the defendant is entitled to the relief he seeks
  5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed

Orders

  • Suit properly instituted.
  • Council of the Order of St John Ambulance, Uganda was competent to dismiss the defendant.
  • Dismissal of the defendant was not wrongful.
  • Counter-claim dismissed with costs.
  • Defendant to be evicted immediately from the offices and flat at 29 Bombo Road.
  • Plaintiff entitled to recover mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of the flat at UGX 300,000 per month from 1 March 1993 until vacant possession.
  • Interest at 12% per annum on mesne profits from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Defendant to hand over all property belonging to the Plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Body Corporate — Authority to Institute Proceedings — Trustees Incorporation Act
Where a body corporate is created under the Trustees Incorporation Act, the Act does not require a resolution by registered trustees before proceedings can be instituted in the body's name. Authority to sue must be established if put in issue, but there is no legal requirement that such authority can only be established by a resolution of registered trustees. The question of authority to sue is governed by the constitution and rules of the body corporate.
Locus Standi — Body Corporate — Management Organ — Authority to Sue
Following the principle that instituting an action in a company's name lies with the organ which according to the constitution must manage the company, instituting an action in the name of a body corporate incorporated under the Trustees Incorporation Act lies with the organ in charge of managing that body corporate as identified in its constitution, not necessarily with the registered trustees.
Trustees Incorporation Act — Failure to Register Changes — Effect on Legal Capacity
Failure to register changes in trustees under section 5 or changes in constitution under section 16 of the Trustees Incorporation Act does not render a properly authorised action brought in the name of the body corporate incompetent, where the body's constitution provides for management by an organ other than the registered trustees and that organ has properly authorised the proceedings.
Summary Dismissal — Gross Misconduct — Insubordination — Usurpation of Authority
An employee who unilaterally usurps the authority of his employer by appointing members to the employer's governing body, writes to the chairman of that body thanking him for services as if terminating his position, and persistently defies lawful instructions commits gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal without notice or payment in lieu of notice.
Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard — Dismissal for Misconduct
An employee is accorded a right to be heard where he is notified of charges against him in writing, provided with an opportunity to respond at a meeting, and permitted to circulate his defence in writing, even if he chooses to object to the proceedings rather than substantively defend himself. The right to be heard does not require the employee to be permitted to call witnesses or tender exhibits where he has been given adequate opportunity to respond to the charges.
Mesne Profits — Wrongful Retention of Premises — Employee
Where a dismissed employee wrongfully retains possession of his employer's premises by refusing to hand over keys after being requested to do so, thereby denying the employer rental income the employer would have obtained by letting the premises to third parties, the employer is entitled to recover mesne profits and damages for use and occupation at the market rental rate from the date possession should have been delivered.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • United Assurance Co Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • The Registered Trustees of Sthanakvashi Jain Sangh v C.M. Sebuliba (Civil Suit No. 443 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees Of The Centre For St John Ambulance Association v John Kintu (Civil Suit 219 of 1993) [1994] UGHCCD 5 (1 December 1994)
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.