Wakilii

Tibihikirra Makooko v Standard Chartered Bank (Labour Dispute Reference No. 315 of 2015)

Industrial Court · [2020] UGIC 37 · 2020 Claim Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Labour dispute reference arising from Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development dispute No. 359/2015
Decision
Claimant awarded general damages and payment of unvested shares; reinstatement denied

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 the claimant's dismissal was unlawful because the respondent bank failed to follow proper disciplinary procedures under both the Employment Act 2006 and its own Human Resources Manual. The claimant was terminated without a fair hearing, without being given an opportunity to respond to allegations of poor performance, and without being placed on a performance improvement plan as required. The court awarded general damages of UGX 1,000,000,000 for unlawful dismissal and USD 108,750 for unvested share options, but declined to order reinstatement given the passage of time and breakdown of trust.

Outcome

Claimant awarded general damages and payment of unvested shares; reinstatement denied

Facts

Between 1995 and 2015, the claimant was employed by the respondent bank in various capacities in Uganda and Kenya. From 2011 to 2015, she served on international assignment as Regional Head of Financial Markets and Wholesale Banking for East Africa, based in Nairobi. In 2014, she received a performance rating of 3C, later downgraded to 3D, attributed to failed audits in Tanzania and Uganda. Despite her bonus being reduced to zero (approximately USD 204,400), her international assignment was extended for another year. In May 2015, she was dismissed without a hearing and before implementation of a performance improvement plan she had been forced to undertake. The respondent cited failure in oversight over governance and compliance, failure to meet revenue targets for Q1 2015, and failure to demonstrate requisite leadership. The claimant contended her dismissal was harsh, in breach of law and the respondent's internal policies, and that she should have been sent back to Uganda for reassignment rather than terminated.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant's dismissal was unlawful?
  2. Whether there are any remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the Claimant was unlawfully dismissed.
  • Award of UGX 1,000,000,000 as general damages for unlawful dismissal.
  • Payment of USD 108,750 (UGX 401,445,187) in unvested shares.
  • Interest of 15% per annum on the monetary awards from date of award until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Unfair Dismissal — Procedural Requirements — Fair Hearing
Before an employee is terminated for poor performance or misconduct, the employer must notify the employee of the reasons for contemplated termination, give the employee reasonable time to respond to those reasons, and afford the employee an opportunity to be accompanied by a person of their choice, in accordance with section 66 of the Employment Act 2006 and ILO Convention No. 158 Article 7.
Unfair Dismissal — Performance Appraisals Distinguished from Disciplinary Hearings
Performance appraisals and informal discussions between an employee and supervisor about work performance do not constitute a disciplinary hearing and cannot substitute for the fair hearing required under section 66 of the Employment Act 2006. For appraisals to constitute a fair hearing, there must be evidence that the employee was given time to react to allegations of incompetence or misconduct and that the employer considered the employee's response before making a decision to terminate.
International Assignment — Termination — Reversion to Home Country Contract
Where an employee's international assignment contract provides that upon completion or termination of the assignment the employee will revert to their home country base contract of employment, the employer must follow separate procedures to terminate both the international assignment and the home country contract. Automatic termination of the home country contract upon termination of the international assignment, without following proper procedure, is unlawful.
Unfair Dismissal — Employer's Internal Policies — Compliance Required
A termination is unfair under section 73(1)(b) of the Employment Act 2006 where the employer fails to act in accordance with justice and equity, including where the employer fails to follow its own internal disciplinary policies and procedures, particularly requirements to undertake informal performance improvement processes before commencing formal disciplinary procedures.
Reinstatement — Discretion of Court — Passage of Time
The Industrial Court has discretion to order reinstatement under section 71(5)(a) of the Employment Act 2006, but will only do so in rare circumstances where trust and confidence between employer and employee still exists or where the duration between termination and resolution of the dispute is recent. Reinstatement will not be ordered where more than nine years have passed since termination and the working relationship has irretrievably broken down.
General Damages — Unlawful Dismissal — Assessment Factors
In assessing general damages for unlawful dismissal, the court considers the employee's status and position, length of service, track record, the manner of termination, the degree of disregard for proper procedure, and the impact on the employee's employability, reputation, and emotional wellbeing including embarrassment, humiliation and inconvenience suffered.
Share Options — Unvested Shares — Entitlement Upon Unlawful Dismissal
Where an employee has been unlawfully dismissed and the employer claims that unvested share options lapsed upon termination, the court will award the value of unvested shares where the employer fails to adduce evidence (such as receipts or acknowledgements) proving that the employee had already cashed out those options prior to termination.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (17)

  • African Field Epidemiology Network v Peter Wasswa Kityaba (Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2017)
  • Donna Kamuli v DFCU Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 02 of 2015)
  • Queenvelle Atieno vs Centre for Corporate Governance (Industrial Court of Kenya, Cause 81/2012)
  • Rogers Kasozi v NIC (Labour Dispute Claim No. 283 of 2014)
  • Florence Mufumbo v Uganda Development Bank (Labour Dispute Claim No. 138 of 2014)
  • Kanyangoga v Bank of Uganda (Labour Dispute Claim No. 080 of 2014)
  • DFCU v Donna Kamuli (Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2016)
  • Isaih Gikumu vs Mengai Oil Refineries Limited cause No. 296 of 2014
  • Akeny Robert v Uganda Communications Commission (Labour Dispute Claim No. 023 of 2015)
  • Jason Njeru Kiggundu v Imperial Bank Uganda Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 172 of 2015)
  • Bessy v Olliot and Lambaert (1682) T Raym 467; 83 ER244
  • Peter Waswa Kityaba v African Field Epidemiology Network (Labour Dispute Reference No. 84 of 2016)
  • Sarah Watsema Goseltine and Another v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Stanbic Bank v Kiyimba Mutale (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 04 of 2009)
  • Edace Micheal v Watoto Child Care Ministries (Labour Dispute Appeal No. 016 of 2015)
  • African Field Epidemiology Network v Peter Waswa Kityaba (Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tibihikirra_Makooko_v_Standard_Chartered_Bank_(Labour_Dispute_Reference_No._315_of_2015)_[2020]_UGIC_37_(24_July_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.