[1995] UGSC 3

[1995] UGSC 3

The Supreme Court held that the respondent Bank's bye-laws and Standing Orders formed part of the appellant's contract of employment and governed both appointment and termination. The termination of the appellant's employment was unlawful as it was not approved by the Registrar, contrary to the requirements of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1995] UGSC 3
Parties
Appellant: David B. Kayondo; Respondent: The Co-operative Bank Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
19 July 199513 September 199519 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Contractual Terms, Natural Justice, Retirement Benefits
Source Language
english
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Termination of Employment Contractual Terms Natural Justice Retirement Benefits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David B. Kayondo

Appellant

The Co-operative Bank Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's employment was lawfully and effectively terminated.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to reliefs including gratuity and pension under the Standing Orders.
  3. 3 Whether the termination amounted to retirement within the meaning of the Bank's Standing Orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the respondent Bank's bye-laws and Standing Orders formed part of the appellant's contract of employment and governed both appointment and termination. The termination of the appellant's employment was unlawful as it was not approved by the Registrar, contrary to the requirements of the bye-laws and Standing Orders, and the appellant was not given a hearing, violating natural justice. The evidence established that the appellant was retired, not summarily dismissed, and was entitled to terminal benefits, gratuity, and pension under Standing Order 24. The trial judge erred in ignoring the bye-laws and Standing Orders and in failing to declare the appellant's...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of dismissal of the suit set aside.
  • Respondent to pay appellant cash in lieu of two additional months' salary, in addition to one month's pay already included in the retirement package.