The Industrial Court has dismissed a case in which a senior accountant sought over UGX950m over unlawful termination by his employer, Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited (UEGCL).
Samuel WIlliam Bamusinighe was a senior accountant at UEGCL until 2017, having joined the company on 17th November 2009. He rose to Project Accountant under a renewable contract dated the 30th May 2014. He alleged that his contract, due to expire on the 30th May 2017, was unfairly and wrongfully terminated and not renewed due to his alleged persistent poor performance, which he disputed.
He claimed that failure to renew his contract stemmed from his whistleblowing activities in November 2016 regarding alleged fraud and abuse of office within UEGCL.
He further alleged that he was sent on forced leave on the 20th April 2017 and thereafter constructively terminated when his email, accounting system, and security clearance were blocked, and his position was subsequently advertised on the 24th April 2017 despite his contract being valid.
He sought declarations that his employment was wrongfully and unfairly terminated, general, aggravated, and punitive damages, interest at 24% per annum, four weeks’ pay for failure to follow Section 66 of the Employment Act 2006 in the sum of Ugx. 8,248,000/=, a Basic Compensatory Order under Section 78(1) of the Employment Act in the sum of Ugx. 8,248,000/= and compensation for the loss of income in the sum of Ugx.936,000,000/= as well as costs of the suit. In total, he wanted court to award him over UGX950m.
However, UEGCL denied Bamusinighe’s assertions, stating that his employment was not unlawfully terminated.
The Respondent further contended that the Claimant’s fixed-term contract expired on the 30th May 2017 and was not renewed due to persistent unsatisfactory performance, a decision well within their discretion as stipulated in the contract.
The Respondent denied sending the Claimant on forced leave or blocking his access to work premises and tools prior to the expiration of his contract.
The Respondent further asserted that the positions advertised on the 24th April 2017 were for “Manager Management Accounting” and “Accountant Budget” and not “Project Accountant,” a role that was phased out due to company restructuring. The Respondent sought the dismissal of the claim with costs.
In re-examination, regarding his performance, the Bamusinighe clarified that while his scores were in the 70s, the Company’s pass mark was 60%. He emphasized that he had never scored below that threshold and that in March his final score of 63% was still considered a passing grade, despite the supervisor’s comments about areas for improvement.
UEGCL asserted that Bamusinighe’s employment ended naturally upon
the expiration of his fixed-term contract on the 30th May 2017, and the Company exercised its discretion not to renew it based on the
Bamusinighe’s “unsatisfactory” performance in tax management and accounts during 2015 and 2016. He stated that whereas the Claimant passed, specific weaknesses were identified.
UEGCL CFO Joshua Karamagi testified that the Bamusinighe was not sent on “forced leave” but was advised to take accrued days, during which time his duties were handled by Mr. Dominic Odoi to ensure continuity, which was a standard office practice.
He disputed the claim of a “witch-hunt,” noting that the UEGCL actually supported the his post-departure career by providing recommendations for roles at Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation and ACCA Global. He also highlighted that the Bamusinighe successfully secured a Chief Finance Officer position at Genmax Nyagak Limited, a joint venture involving UEGCL.
In its ruling, Court concluded that UEGCL had discretion to renewthe contract or not to.
Head Judge, Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha, declared that the claimant has not demonstrated that there was legitimate expectation created by the Respondent that his contract would be renewed.
Therefore, considering clause 2 of his contract that gave sole discretion to the Respondent to renew it or not, by declining to renew it when it issued a notice of non-renewal, albeit based on his unsatisfactory performance, this did not amount to unlawful termination.
The Respondent had no legal obligation to give him a reason for declining the renewal and therefore no obligation to subject the claimant to any proceedings.
”Having established that the Respondent had discretion not to renew the Claimant’s contract and the notice of non-renewal was not an unlawful termination, he would not be entitled to any remedies claimed. This court has taken the position not to award costs to a losing party unless he or she acted frivolously, vexatiously, or unreasonably, or for negligent acts or omissions. We have not found any reason to award costs in this matter. In the circumstances, no order as to costs is made. In the Final, this claim fails. No order as to costs is made,” said Justice Mugisha.
