[2005] UGHC 141

DEFENDANT

DATE

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

### CIVIL SUIT NO. 164 OF 2004

**HENRY WAIBALE JEFU LAWRENCE** JAMIL KITANDWE For and on behalf of 500 others

**VERSUS**

ATTORNEY GENERAL

BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE R. O. OKUMO WENCE

#### **JUDGMENT:**

The Plaintiffs numbering 435 were former Internal Security Organization operatives until the 1992 - 1994 demobilisations that saw them being relieved of their awesome occupations. The demobilisations were dubbed a restructuring exercise in the service. They contend that their removals were in breach of their employment and they were denied terminal or severance packages and suffered loss and damage. They prayed for terminal benefits, pension, gratuity, arrears of unpaid allowances, money in lieu of notice of termination, medical and transport allowances and general damages. The Attorney General denied liability contending that the Plaintiffs had never been employed by the defendant and that no valid contract existed between them and the defendant. In the alternative it argued that the suit disclosed no cause of action and was time barred. When

the matter came up for trial two facts were agreed as admitted namely that

- (1) The Plaintiffs served under the lnternal Security Organization. - (2) The plaintiffs were retired and or ceased to serve in the lnternal Security Organization in 1993.

Four issues were framed for the trial namely

a

- 1. Whether the Plaintiffs were employees of the lnternal Security Organization - 2. Whether the suit is time barred and disclose a cause of action - 3. Whether the plaintiffs employment in lnternal Security Organization were fully paid all their benefits. - 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies they seek.

The Plaintiff called one witness while the defendant called none anll made no submissions or move to participate further in the proceedings.

On the first issue there were exhibits P1 - P3 and the admission of fact that the plaintiffs were lnternal Security Organization operatives

who served and got retired from service in the years 1993 - 1995. The only witness for the plaintiffs Jeff Lawrence told court that their terms of service were conditioned by the ISO statutes and the lnternal Security Organization Regulations that came into force in 2000. He described the way the demobilization was effected and contended that what was paid to them was inadequate and not in accordance to what they were entitled under the general terms of service for ISO workers.

t

t

ln the absence of any other evidence to the contrary I am satisfied that the plaintiffs were employees of ISO and were entitled to be treated in case of a lay off in accordance with the law. I have not seen any reason for their terminations other than the fact of severance and or demobilization. There was also no pleading in the Written Statement of Defence that the Plaintiffs employments with the defendant were lawfully ended in a summary way due to incompetence, inability to perform or bad behavior. ln view of the pleading and the admissions of fact then this point could not be canvassed. lam not able to say that in view of this the Plaint discloses no cause of action as alleged or tlrat the suit rryas tinre barred given exhibit P.2 dated 61512002, and the absence ol challenge to the pleading on statutory Notice. ln other words I have answered the issues all in favour of the of the Plaintiffs and concluded that they are entitled to judgment against the defendant as prayed for in the plaint. I would enter judgment accordingly and award each plaintiff shs 500,000/= as general damages. They are

entitled to interest on this and other monetary awards at 10% from the date of filing till payment in full and costs of this suit.

R. O. Okumu Wengi JUDGE 12/5/2005. 20/5/2005

Matovu for Plaintiff Chibita for Defendant Senabulya Court Clerk.

# Court:

Judgment read in open court in presence of all above persons.


20/5/2005.

CERTIFIE NA COP PATE DEP