MULINDAHABI v. EWSA

MULINDAHABI v. EWSA

Mulindahabi was governed by labour law, not the General Statute for public service, as he did not provide an instrument of appointment. Termination during probation did not require notice, but EWSA failed to inform him of the alleged fault, violating his right to defence, thus damages were awarded. No reinstatement was ordered as the contract was terminated during probation for performance reasons. Procedural and counsel fees were limited to what was evidenced and justified.

Citation
RLR V.1 - 2015
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Mulindahabi Fidèle; Respondent/appellant: EWSA (Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
8 November 2013
Case Number
RADA0015/13/CS
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Cross Appeals
Outcome
EWSA's appeal allowed in part; Mulindahabi's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employment Contract, Probation Period, Unlawful Dismissal, Damages, Procedural Expenses, Right to Defence
Source Language
en
Labour Law Contract Law Constitutional Law Employment Contract Probation Period Unlawful Dismissal Damages Procedural Expenses +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mulindahabi Fidèle

Appellant/respondent

EWSA (Energy, Water and Sanitation Authority)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Cross Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mulindahabi was governed by the General Statute for public service or Labour Law
  2. 2 Whether termination during probation required notice or damages
  3. 3 Whether Mulindahabi was entitled to reinstatement or damages

Ratio Decidendi

Mulindahabi was governed by labour law, not the General Statute for public service, as he did not provide an instrument of appointment. Termination during probation did not require notice, but EWSA failed to inform him of the alleged fault, violating his right to defence, thus damages were awarded. No reinstatement was ordered as the contract was terminated during probation for performance reasons. Procedural and counsel fees were limited to what was evidenced and justified.

Court Disposition

EWSA's appeal allowed in part; Mulindahabi's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • EWSA to pay Mulindahabi 1,350,000 Rwf in damages and 200,000 Rwf in procedural expenses (total 1,550,000 Rwf).
  • EWSA and Mulindahabi to jointly pay court fees of 27,600 Rwf within eight days, failing which the amount will be recovered by government coercion.