Tumshabe v Normandy Company (Labour Dispute Reference 28 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
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 termination of a security guard by a labour exporting firm for reasons stated as factors beyond the employer's control was unlawful and unfair. The employer failed to justify the stated reason for termination and terminated the employee during his medical treatment for work-related injuries without following proper procedure. The court awarded general damages of US$10,800 and punitive damages of US$5,400, but denied claims for severance pay and four weeks' net pay.
Outcome
Claimant's application partly allowed with awards of general and punitive damages; claims for severance pay and four weeks' net pay denied
Facts
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, a labour exporting firm, as a security guard on a one-year contract from 1 February 2020 at a monthly salary of US$900. He was seconded to work in Mogadishu, Somalia. In December 2020, he sustained injuries at his workstation and received treatment at GVM Hospital in Somalia for one year. He was evacuated to Uganda and treated at IHK Hospital and Ruby Medical Centre at the Respondent's expense. He was diagnosed with intervertebral disc herniation with foraminal stenosis. In January 2022, the Respondent withdrew medical support. On 18 February 2022, the Respondent terminated his employment citing factors beyond its control. The termination letter stated the termination was not related to individual performance or misconduct and that he would be paid full salary until his last day and two months' wages in lieu of notice. The Claimant lodged a complaint with the labour office, and after unsuccessful mediation, the matter was referred to the Industrial Court on 10 February 2023.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant was unfairly terminated from employment?
- What remedies are the parties entitled to?
Orders
- It is declared that the Claimant was unlawfully and unfairly terminated from employment with the Respondent.
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant US$10,800 (Ten Thousand Eight Hundred United States Dollars) in general damages.
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant US$5,400 (Five Thousand Four Hundred United States Dollars) in punitive damages.
- The claims for compensation for lack of hearing and severance pay are denied.
- The Claimant shall have costs of the claim.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (27)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.57
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.58(1)(3)(b)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.58(1)(3)(d)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.64(1)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.64(1)(a)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.64(1)(b)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.65
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.65(1)(a)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.65(1)(b)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.65(4)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.66
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.66(1)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.66(4)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.67
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.68
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.68(1)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.68(2)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.69
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.70(c)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.72(1)(b)
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.80
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.86
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.87
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.92
- Employment Act Cap. 226 s.54(1)(a)
- Workers Compensation Act Cap. 233 s.14
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.27
Cases cited (33)
- Musinguzi v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2016)
- Barclays Bank of Uganda v Mubiru [1999] UGSC 22
- Okello v Rift Valley Railways (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 195 of 2009)
- Turyatemba and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
- Kaggwa v Plan International (Labour Dispute Reference No. 125 of 2014)
- Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Limited v Nassanga [2023] UGCA 342
- Obonyo v MTN (U) Ltd [2016] UGIC 24
- Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire [2008] UGSC 21
- Mutebe v Joint Medical Stores (Labour Dispute Reference No. 132 of 2020)
- Uganda v Adima (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 0176 of 2002)
- Tennessee Coal Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944)
- Castanie v. Widow Hurtado
- Ndaula and Another v PostBank Uganda Limited [2025] UGIC 2
- Lubowa v NSSF (Labour Dispute Reference No. 001 of 2019)
- Makoko v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 315 of 2015)
- Okello v Entebbe Handling Services Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 2000 of 2014)
- Bank of Uganda v Kibuuka [2021] UGCA 33
- Egimu v Henly Distributors Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference No. 178 of 2020)
- Akewa v Loving one by one Ministries [2024] UGIC 54
- Consulate Mukadisi v Safe Boda
- Serungoji v Guinness Transporters T/A Safe Boda (Labour Dispute Reference No. 47 of 2022)
- Uganda Post Limited v Mukadisi [2022] UGCA 311
- Uganda Post Limited v Mukadisi [2023] UGSC 58
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume [2012] UGCA 3
- DFCU Bank Ltd v Kamuli [2020] UGSC 51
- DFCU Bank Limited v Kamuli [2019] UGCA 2088
- Bholim v Car and General Limited [2004] UGSC 8
- The Normandy Company v Tumushabe [2023] UGIC 95
- Komakech v Muttico Technical Services Limited and Another [2024] UGIC 25
- Mugyenzi v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd [2019] UGCA 120
- Samuel Wanyonyi Wamalwa v Wells Fargo Limited [2017] KEELRC 1720 (KLR)
- Mancini vs. DPP (1942) AC 1
- Ngobi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.