Wakilii

Uganda Wildlife Authority v Kuluo and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2011)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 87 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court (Civil Division) judicial review orders
Decision
Appeal substantially failed; general damages upheld, interest reduced from 25% to 17% per annum

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 Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's finding that the second respondent's employment was unlawfully terminated because she was denied a hearing before termination, in breach of the constitutional right to be treated justly and fairly under article 42. Although the contract permitted termination on notice or payment in lieu, the employer gave reasons (irregular recruitment and lack of experience) requiring a hearing. The award of UGX 30,000,000 general damages was upheld as neither unsupported nor excessive, given her senior position. The interest rate of 25% per annum was found excessive and substituted with 17% per annum from the date of the High Court award. The appeal substantially failed.

Outcome

Appeal substantially failed; general damages upheld, interest reduced from 25% to 17% per annum

Facts

The second respondent was appointed Director of Corporate Affairs of Uganda Wildlife Authority on a four-year contract dated 3 November 2009, subject to a six-month probationary period. On 6 July 2010 the Board of Trustees terminated her services, stating she had been irregularly recruited and lacked the required experience, and paid her three months' salary in lieu of notice. She was not given any opportunity to be heard before the decision. The respondents brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court, which found the Board of Trustees to have been illegally constituted, granted mandamus requiring the Minister to appoint a lawful Board, restrained the impugned trustees from acting, declared the second respondent's termination unlawful, and awarded her UGX 30,000,000 general damages with interest at 25% per annum. The Authority appealed against the finding of unlawful termination, the damages award, and the interest rate.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the second respondent's employment was unlawfully terminated.
  2. Whether the award of general damages of UGX 30,000,000 for unlawful and malicious termination was justified and not excessive.
  3. Whether the award of interest at 25% per annum on the general damages was excessive.

Orders

  • The appeal substantially fails.
  • The Appellant is ordered to pay general damages of UGX 30,000,000 to the second respondent.
  • The award of interest is substituted with 17% per annum from the date of the High Court award till payment in full.
  • The Appellant is ordered to pay 3% of the taxed costs of the second respondent in this court.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Right to be Heard — Procedural Fairness before Administrative Decisions
A public body that terminates an employee's services on stated grounds, such as irregular recruitment or lack of experience, must accord the employee a hearing before reaching its decision; failure to do so breaches the right to be treated justly and fairly and renders the decision unlawful.
Fair Hearing — Article 42 of the Constitution — Treatment before Administrative Bodies
The right under article 42 of the Constitution to be treated justly and fairly by an administrative body, together with the right to a fair hearing under articles 28(1) and 44(c), cannot be circumvented by an employer relying on a contractual right to terminate on payment in lieu of notice where reasons adverse to the employee are given.
Termination — Probationary Contracts — Application of Employment Act s.66 and s.67
Section 66 of the Employment Act does not apply to dismissals ending a probationary contract, but where an employer terminates on stated grounds of misconduct or poor performance the notification and hearing requirements, and the constitutional duty of fairness, still apply.
General Damages — Unlawful Termination — Presumption and Assessment
General damages for unlawful termination need not be specifically pleaded or quantified, being presumed to follow the wrong; they compensate for inconvenience, embarrassment and damage to career prospects, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court applied wrong principles or the award is inordinately high or low.
Interest — Discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.26 — Reasonable Rate
An award of interest under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is compensatory and discretionary, but should be reasonable and reflect the rate at which the successful party would have had to borrow money; an award of 25% per annum was excessive and reduced to 17% per annum.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (18)

  • Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Mary Pamela Sozi v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2012)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Fortunato Federici v Irene Nabwire (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Patel v Samaj and another; Civil Appeal No 20 of 1942 (1944) 11 EACA 1
  • Flint v Lovell (1935) 1 KB 360
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1956] 1 QB 658
  • Doreen Rugundu v International Law Institute (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2000)
  • Harbutts Plasticide Ltd v Wayna Tank and Pump Company Ltd. [1970] 1 QB 447
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1995)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469 HL
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council and another [1981] 3 All ER 716
  • R v Secretary for the Home Department Ex Parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Wildlife Authority v Kuluo and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2011) [2021] UGCA 87 (11 March 2021)
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.