Turinayo v Board of Governors Seseme Girls Secondary School (Labour Dispute Reference 7 of 2021)
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 a clerical officer posted to a government secondary school was not an employee of the school's Board of Governors but of the local government, as his salary was paid by the Ministry of Education. The court found that the school did not terminate his employment; rather, he was deleted from the payroll by his actual employer, the local government. The forced leave imposed by the school did not constitute unfair dismissal. The claim was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Outcome
Claim dismissed — claimant found not to be employee of respondent school
Facts
On 30 May 1994, the claimant began work as a clerical officer at Seseme Girls Secondary School, Kisoro, a government-aided school. He was later assigned duties as assistant bursar. On 12 April 2012, the school's Board of Governors placed him on one month's forced leave to conduct investigations into financial irregularities in his department. The school requested audit documents from him on 15 May 2012 and again on 12 June 2012. The claimant did not respond. He lodged a complaint of unfair dismissal with the Labour Officer at Kisoro. The respondent replied that the claimant had been deleted from the payroll by the Ministry of Education, not by the school. Mediation failed, and the matter was referred to the Industrial Court on 18 February 2021. The claimant sought a declaration that the forced leave was unlawful, unpaid salary of UGX 46,103,429, general and aggravated damages, interest, and costs. The respondent contended that it had never employed or paid the claimant, who was a public servant employed by the Ministry of Education and posted to the school.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent?
- Whether the Claimant was unlawfully terminated?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Claim dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Employment Act Cap. 220 s.2
- Employment Act Cap. 220 s.62
- Employment Act Cap. 220 s.64
- Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act Cap. 247 s.9
- Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act Cap. 247 s.29
- Education (Board of Governors) Regulations Schedule 3 Regulation 10
- Education (Board of Governors) Regulations Regulation 22(1)
- Uganda Public Service Standing Orders paragraph 13
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.27
Cases cited (2)
- Tiluryebwa Julius v Sino Minerals Investment Company Ltd (Labour Dispute Reference 1 of 2022)
- Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GiZ) GMBH (Labour Dispute Reference 109 of 2020)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.