Uganda Post Limited v Mukadisi (Civil Appeal 13 of 2022) [2023] UGSC 58 (29 November 2023)

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (CORAM: MWONDHA, TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, TUHAISE, cHrBrTA AND MUSOKE JJ.SC) 10 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2022. BETWEEN 1s UGANDA POST LIMITED APPELLANT AND CONSOLATE MUI(ADISI RESPONDENT 20 [An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal at Kampala before: (Hon. Justices: Cheboion Barishaki, Stephen Musota and Christopher Madrama, JJA) in Ciuil Appeal No.251 of 2O18 dated lOth March 2022.1 Representationz The Appellant companA was represented by Couns el .lfasser LumuL e no. The Respondent LUas represented by Counsel Kagere Yusuf. Case Summary: Employrnent law - Unlawful termination of employment contract. Employment law - Genera.l damages and payment in lieu of notice serve different purposes. Unlawful termination of employment - A wronged part5r can claim both pagment in lieu of notice and compensatory damages. The compensatory damages can be in form of general or aggravated damages. 30 1, t 5 JUDGMENT OF PROF. TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JSC. Facts: 10 The respondent was appointed by the Appellant company on probation as Head of Human Resource and Administration. Following the satisfactory completion of her probation, the respondent was confirmed as the appellant's employee in the position of Head of Human Resource for a period of 4 years commencing on 20th July, 2009. She was issued with an appointment letter as well as a copy of the terms and condit.ions of service. On the 17th of August, 20 11, the appellant by letter instructed the respondent to take forced leave to pave way for investigations into allegations of discrimination at work, use of unacceptable language and professional misconduct which was made against her by one Acham Christine-a former employee of the appellant. Following the letter of 17th August, 201 1, an email was circulated to the rest of the company staff stating that the respondent had been sent on leave. On 18th August,2OIl, the respondent protested the contents of the letter and following her protest, the decision to send her on forced leave and all earlier communications were withdrawn. On 31st August, 2011, the respondent received an invitation to attend the appellant's Board Meeting which was to be held on 2nd September,20ll to defend herself against the allegations. Following the Board meeting, the appellant terminated the respondent's employment with immediate effect. The respondent contended that her contract of employment with the appellant was unlaw{ully terminated, the decision having been based on unfounded allegations made against her by Acham Christine and that the hearing conducted hy the Board of Directors of the appellant company contravened the rules of natural justice and tainted the decision of the Board. The appellant denied the claims and asserted that the termination of the respondent's employment was proper and in accordance with its terms and conditions of service. Furthermore, that the respondent 15 20 25 30 2 0 35 5 had engaged in acts of insubordination, indiscipline ani had used insulting language against Acham Christine which conduct was not befitting of a person in the position of Head Human Resources and Administration of the said comparly. At the High Court, judgment was entered in favor of the respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision and orders, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was entitled to fair and reasonable treatment by the appellant. In his lead judgment, Cheborion Barishaki, JA held that: "The learned tial Judge justified his reasons for awarding a sum of 15O,O00,O0O/ = (One Hundred and Fifiy Million) as resulting from the appellant's unfair and unlatuful act in terminating the respondent. It is mg considered uietl that in awarding general damages, the learned trial Judge exercised his discretion judiciously and I find no reason to interfere with the au.tard of general damages of 150,O0O,000/ = giuen to the respondent." The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment as well as the orders of the trial Judge. The costs in both courts were awarded to the respondent. Dissatished with the Court of Appeal decision, the appellar^t company lodged an appeal in this Court on the following ground: The Learned Trial Judge erred in Law and fact when he awarded the Respondent shs. 15O,OOO,OOO / = (shilling One Hundred Fifty Millionl as general damages which was manifestly excessive in the circumstances and amounted to an illegality. Prayers: (i) The Appeal be allowed. (ii) The decision of the Court of Appeal be reversed. (iii) The Appellant be granted the costs of this Appeal as well those in the lower Courts. 10 15 20 25 30 3 \-' /\u <) 5 Appellant's submissions The Appellant submitted that the general damages award of Ug. Shs. 150,000,OO0/= is manifestly excessive warranting the intervention of this Honourable court. Counsel argued that, the Respondent misled the trial judge into believing that salary for the unexpired term of the contract, gratuity for the unexpired term of 23 months, other a-llowances and entitlements for the unexpired term of contract such as airtime, medical allowance, lunch subsidy should be taken into account when awarding her general damages for unlawful dismissal. The Appellant's counsel submitted that the Respondent used a wrong principle in guiding the trial judge to assess the quantum of damages. That it was as a result of this error that the trial judge awarded a hefty sum of Shs. 150,00O,OOO/= as general damages to the Respondent. Furthermore, that the Justices of thc Court of Appeal were also misled by the above mentioned assessment and upheld the above decision of the trial judge. In support of the above submission, counsel referred to the decision of this Court in Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyirel which states the law regarding the award of damages to an employee for the termination of an employment contract. In that case, Kanyeihamba JSC (as he then was) who wrote the lead judgment observed at page 7 lines 4-15 that: "The contention that an emplogee uhose contract of emplogment is terminated premahrely or illegallg should be compensated for the remainder of the Aears or period when they would haue retired is unattainable in Law. Similarlg, claims of holidags, leaue, lunch allowances and the like which the unlaufully dismissed employee would haue enjogeci had the dismissal not occurred are merely speculatiue and cannot be lustified in Law. I u.tould confine the compensation for the unlawful dismissa/ of the Appellant to the monetary ualue of the peiod that uas necessary to giue proper notice of termination which is commonlg known in lau as compensation in lieu of notice. l Supreme Court Civil Appeal Number 12 of 2007 4 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ,, 5 The pinciples established by this Court in Barclags Bank of Uganda u Godfrey Mubiru (supra) remain good lau that gouerns the relationship between an employer and employees with regard to termination of the latter's employment." According to counsel, application of the principle in the above authority meant that the Respondent was entitled to damages equivalent to one month's salary which was Ushs. 6,O5O,0O0/-. Respondent's reply The Respondent's counsel argued that the trial judge was never misguided on the principles that are supposed to be considered while awarding general damages That the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, on page 1O of the judgment that: the learned trial judge justified his reasons for awarding a sum of UGX 150,000,000/= (One Hundred and Fifty Million). This stemmed from the Appellant's actions of unfairly and unlawfully terminating the respondent's employment. Furthermore, that the Court of Appeal held that in awarding general damages, the learned trial judge exercised his discretion judiciously and there was no reason to interfere with the award of general damages. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the leamed Justices of the Court of Appeal properly evaluated the evidence on record, the circumstances of the case, the relevant authorities and principles of the law regarding award of general damages and it was on the said basis that the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge of awarding the respondent UGX 15O,OOO,O0O/: (Shillings One Hundred Fifty Million only). Counsel therefore prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Rejoinder In rejoinder, the Appellant submitted that the Court of Appeal considered ttre principles goveming the award of general damages generally instead of addressing the principles governing 10 15 20 35 40 5 -/, 30 5 the award of damages in employment matters which said principles have been settled by this Court in the case of Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (supra) thereby erring in law and awarding damages of Ushs. 15O,OOO,O0O/= (Shillings One Hundred Fifty Million Only) which were manifestly excessive in the circumstances and amounted to an illegality. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal is bound by the Supreme Court decision of Betty Tinkamanyire. That consequently, in declining to follow the principles governing the award of damages in employment matters set out in the said case, the Court of Appeal had erred in law. Counsel argued that even if the principles governing the award of damages in employment matters were as the Court of Appeal stated, there was no justification for an increase of genera-l damages from Ug. Shs. 6,O50,000/= to Ug. Shs. 150,000,000/=. Court's consideration The essence of the Appellant's arguments is that the award of general damages in cases of unlawful dismissal from emploSrment should be restricted to the amount pav able in lieu of notice stipulated in the 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 employment contract. That any payment beyond this would be excessive and illegal. I however note that in their submissions, the Appellant seems to blur the difference between damages awarded for wrongs suJered as a result of the unlawful termination of employment - general damages - on the one hand, and compensation for failure by the employer to give the employee notice as stipulated in the contract of employment, on the other hand. Consequently, whereas the sole ground of appeal is against the quantum of general damages awarded by the Trial Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal, the submissions elucidating the ground talk about the Respondent's claims for salary for the unexpired term of the contract, gratuity for the unexpired term of 23 months, other allowances and entitlements for the unexpired term of cor,tract such 6 b 5 as airtime, medica-l allowance, lunch subsidy which should be taken into account when awarding her general damages for unlawful dismissal. The appeliant argued that it is this that misguided court in arriving at a wrong quantum of general damages. I must point out however that the claims being referred to in the argument of the Appellant are only relevant to an interrogation of what is justifiable as a compensatory award for the termination of an employment contract without notice. 10 15 The issues to be determined in this appeal are therefore as follows: where it is proved that an employee's contract was unlaw{ully terminated, 1. What principles are relevant to a determination of damages for termination of employment before expiry of contract, without notice? 2. What principles are relevant to a determination of general damages? 20 30 lixed period. and one in which there is a provision enablins either party to terminate the emplovment. The learned Justices stated the law to be that in the event of wrongful termination by the employer, the employ ee in the former contract would be entitled to recover as damages, the equivalent of remuneration 3s for the balance ofthe contract period, whereas in the latter case 7 /, , sccA No.G of 1998 The answer to issue 1 above is found in the judgment of Mulenga JSC (as he then was), who while agreeing with the Courr. of Appeal held in Gullabhai Ushillani v Kampala Pharmaceutical Limited2 zs held that: In deciding that issue 1of damages), the Court of Appeal appreciated that the employment in the instant case, was for a fixed period. The Court made a distinction between a contract which makes no provision for termination prior to exPirv of the the wronEed emplovee wotrld be entitled to recover as damages. the equivalent of remuneration for the period stipulated in the s contract for notice. I respectfully agree that this is the correct 10 statement of the law. I would add that it is premised on the principle of restltrttlo ln integrunL Darrl,ages are intended to restore the wronged party into the position he would have been in if there had been no breach of contract. Thus, in the case of employment for a fixed period which is not terminable, if there is no wrongful termination, the employee would senre the full P eriod and receive the full remuneration for it. And in the case of the contract terminable on notice if the termination preyisian iS complied with, the employee would serve the 1s stipulated notice period and receive remuneration for that perild. or would be paid in lieu of the notice. (My emphasis) 20 The above position of law was subsequently reiterated in this Court's decision of Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Supra). In that case, the appellant faulted the Court of Appeal for, inter alia, upholding the award of damages to the respondent for wrongful dismissal which exceeded the three months' salary in lieu of notice as well as the upholding of the award of the respondent's salary for the remaining period of her service. In addressing these grounds of appeal, this Court as expressed in the judgment of Kanyeihamba, JSC held that: 25 30 "... compensation for the unlawful dismissal of the appellant was to be confined to the monetary value of the period that was necessary to give proper notice of termination which is commonly known in law as compensation in lieu of notice." Thus, the Court in the Betty Tinkamanyire decision set aside the Court of Appeal's decision which upheld the award of Ushs. 3O,00O,OOO/= as general damages for wrongful dismissal which had exceeded the notice period the respondent was contractually entitled to. This decision was in line with the earlier cases of Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru3 and Ahmed lbrahim Bholm v Car & General Limiteda 35 3 sccA No.1of 1998. 4 SCCA No.12 of 2002 8 /2, 5 In all the above cases, this Court has been consistent in applying the principle in respect of compensatory damages following unlawful termination: that lhe compensation should be resticted to the contractual notice peiod or if there is none in the contract, reasonable notice depending on the circumstances of each case. The compensatory award is limited to reimbursing the employee for the employer's failure to give proper notice of termination of their employment. In the matter before us, the employment was for a hxed period- four years. Paragraph 12(b) of the contract specifica-lly stipulated that: "Afier confirmation, the appointment mag be terminated bg either party giuing one month's notice or bg pagment of an equiualent of one month's salary." The contract made provision for termination of the employment prior to expiry of the fixed period. According to the above authorities, a wronged employee was entitled to recover as compensation, the equivalent of remuneration for the period stipulated in the contract for notice. The question which follows is: whether, in the present appeal, the lower courts followed the said principle in exercising the drscretion to award compensation damages. The Appellant argued that the Respondent's plaint misguided the trial Court by including claims beyond the direct pecuniary benefit/salary stipulated in the contract which the respondent was entitled to receive upon termination of her employment contract. The particular claims highlighted by the Appellant's counsel which misguided court were: (i) Salary for the unexpired term of the contract from September 20 1 l-July 2013 i.e. 23 months at the rate of Ushs. 6,050,000/= per month at a total sum of Ushs. 139,1s0,0O0/ =. (ii) Gratuity for the unexpired term of 23 months at 2Oo/o of Shs. 139,1s0,OOO/ =. (iii) Other allowa.irc€S d.rrd entitlement for the unexpired term of the contract i.e. airtime of Shs. lOO,OOO/= per month for 23 months (Shs. 2,3OO,OOO/=); medical allowance at 5O,OOO/= 10 15 20 25 30 35 9 L 5 per month for the unexpired period of 23 months (shs. 1,150,OOO/=); lunch subsidy of 5,00O/= per day for 23 days a month for 23 months (shs. 2,645,00O/=). Al1 the above claims amounted to a total of Ug. Shs. l9O,'/99 ,333 I = . At the Trial Court, the Judge considered the claims under issue three which was framed as follorvs: What remedies are auailable to the parties? The Trial Judge considered each of the above claims one by one. Regarding the claim for salary for unexpired term of contract, the Judge held as follows: "... the plaintiffs contract of seruice was for a peiod of 4 yeors [which] had commenced on 20th Julg 2009. It is the case that the plaintiffs contract of seruice uas terminated on 3d September 2011. In effect therefore, there is a peiod of about 23 months remaining on her contract. 10 15 20 In this matter, I will follow the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Uganda a Betty Tinkamangtre SCCA No.72 of 2OO7 to hold that the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the salaru or anu emoluments for the unexpired term of her contract. I uill consider the 25 monetary ualue of one-month notice peiod that she was entitled to tn lieu of notice. I note that the one month's termination notice has been con.sidered as part of the terminal benefits that are pagable to the Plaintiff." (My emphasis) It is clear from the Trial Court's holding above that the Judge followed the principles laid down in the already discussed authorities which are to the effect that an employee's compensation following unlawful termination is restricted to the equivalent of the remuneration for the period of notice stipulated in the employment contract and does not include compensation for the remaining or unexpired term of the contract. 30 35 tt/ 10 , 11 s I therefore find that even though the Respondent's plaint included compensatory claims for the unexpired term of the contract, the Judge applied the correct principles of law and declined to award the same. The Judge was not misguided by the claims for the unexpired term of the contract. A notice period of one month was required for 10 the Appellant as an employer to terminate a contract. A 'payment in lieu of notice' became immediately payable as compensation at an amount equal to what the Respondent would have earned as salary by working through the whole notice period. It is this that the trial judge awarded to the Respondent. 1s But this could not, and did not prevent the trial judge from considering the claim for general damages as an independent award as will be explained below. Issue 2 The Appellant faulted the quantum of general damages assessed by zo the Trial Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal. I will now answer the question: where it is proved that an employee's contract was unlau{ully terminated, what principles are relevant to a determination of general damages? In arriving at the quantum, the Trial Judge held as follows: zs "The plaintiff auerred in her pleadings that because of the defendant's unlauful termination, such actions haue caused her mental anguish, stress and contempt from fellow emplogees and contemporaies. In Brrnk of Uganda a Bettg Tlnkamanglre SCCA No.72 of 2OO7, court held that: '... th.e reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Agbettah u 30 Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board (1984-86) GLRD 16 should be followed so that the courts were able to anaard damages which reflected the courts disapproual of a wrongful dismissal and the sum tuas not confined to an amount equiualent to the worker's u.tages."' In this respect, it is my finding that the defendant uillfully uiolated the 3s emplogee's terms and conditions of seruice in the manner that the disciplinary proceedings and heaings u)ere instituted, conducted and determined to the prejudice of the plaintiff, that occasioned 5 inconuenience and humiliation to her colleague s and profe s sional circle s. before her family, fiends, Taking that into accoun\ and the fact that the plaintiff had uorked with the defendant for a peiod of two Aears, an anaard of UGX 150,000,000 (one hundred and fifiq million), would be sufficient as general damages." In upholding the above quantum of general damages, the Court of Appeal held that: "It is a settled proposition of lau that uthile assesslng general damages, the Court considers the nafire of harm, the ualue of the subject matter and the economic inconuenience that the injured party mag haue been put through. [See Ugandq Commercial Bank V Deo Kigozt (2OO2) 1 EA 3OS and Kibimba Rice Ltd u Umar Sulim, SCCA No.17 of 19921. The Record of appeal indicatcs that the Respondent had been hired as the Head Human Resource and Administration Manager for the appellant Compang for a contract of 4 Aears commencing from 2oth dag of Julg, 20O9 to 3rd September, 2011, uhen the contract was terminated. The euidence on record shorus that the respondent's termination of employment was unlawful. The learned trial Judge discussed the instances where the appellant failed to institute, conduct and resolue the matter in accordance with the tenets of a fair heaing under the following 5 heads; failure bg the appellant to accord the respondent enough time to prepare her defence, the offence u)ds not clearlg set out in the prouisions of the disciplinary code and its procedures, the appearance ofthe respondent before the board ofthe appellant that submitted to external inJluences and tuas eager to demonstrate ils submission to tLrc demands of the said forces, the omission or failure to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the appellant that tuas in place as the proper forum to resolue the matter, the Board of Directors acting as a disciplinary forum and participation of the Managing Director in the proceedings, discussion and decision. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 The learned tial Judge justified his reasons for awarding a sum of 12 // 5 150,000,000/- (One Hundred and Fifig Million) as resulting from the appellant's unfair and unlawful act in terminating the respondent. It is my considered uieu that in awarding general damages, the learned trial Judge exercised his discretion judiciouslg and I find no reason to interfere utith the award of general damages of 150,0O0,OO0/ = the respondent." General damages are the direct natural or probable consequence of the wrongful act complained of and include damages for pain, suffering, inconvenience and anticipated future loss.s General damages are monetary compensation for the non-monetary aspects of a wrong suffered by a plaintiff. The basis for the award of general damages is the doctrine of restitutio in integrum which is supported by Article 126 l2l (c) of the Constitution which provides that in adjudicating cases, adequate compensation shall be awarded to victims of wrongs. In computing the adequate compensation which a plaindff may be awarded as general damages, the court exercises judicia-l discretion. The discretion is guided by factors such as the value of the subject matter and the econc-,mic inconvenience that a party may have been put through.6 I note that in arriving at the award of general damages, the Court of Appeal took into consideration the high handed manner in which the Respondent's employment was terminated as well as the procedural improprieties in the disciplinary action undertaken by the Appellant's Board of Directors. Having taken into account these factors, and the period of 2 years and I month the Respondent had served the Appellant company, the Court of Appeal found that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion judiciously and upheld the award of general damages in the sum of Ug. Shs. 150,OO0,OOO/=. It therefore cannot be said that the court acted upon a wrong principle of law nor s Storms vs. Hutchinson [1905] AC 515; Betty Kizito v David Kizito & 7 Ors (Civil Appeal No.8 of 2018) [2019] UGSC 28 (19 September 2019) 6 Kibimba Rice Limited vs. UmarSalim (sCCA No.17 of 1992). 13 10 15 20 25 30 35 /, 'r tV 5 can it be said that the amount was excessive and an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. An appellate Court will not interfere with an award of general damages by a lower court unless the court has acted upon a \,'rrong principle of law or that the amount is so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.T In the circumstances of the case before us, I find no reason to interfere with the award. I also hasten to add that general damages on the one hand, and pagment in lieu of notice on the other serve different purposes. General damages can be awarded in addition to the paynrent in lieu of notice given to an employee who has been unlawfully dismissed from employment. Pa5rment in lieu of notice is intended to compensate the wrongfully terminated employee for the employer's breach of contract in failing to give due notice of termination. General damages are not tied to specific financia-l losses. Genera-l damages are assessed by the court and are not restricted to the salary or pecuniarlr benefit stipulated in the employment contract. They are awarded to compensate the employee for nor,-economic harm or distress caused by the wrongful dismissal. These damages include compensation for emotional distress, mental anguish, damage to reputation and .rny other non-monetary harm suffered due to the dismissal. I note that the Respondent at paragraph 10 of her plaint averred that, the defendantt (appellant in this Court) unlawful actions haue caused her mental anguish, stress and contempt from fonner fellou employees and contemporaies for uhich she uill seek to recouer from the defendant. 7 Robert Coussens vs. Attorney General SCCA No.8 of 1999; Crown Beverages Ltd vs. Sendu Edward SCCA No.1of 2005. 14 10 15 20 30 // Genera,l damages were awarded as disapproval by the court of the high handed manner in which the Respondent's employment was terminated as well as the procedural improprieties in the disciplinary action undertaken by the Appellant's Board of Directors. The courts below made a finding that the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings and hearings were instituted and conducted occasioned inconvenience and humiliation to the Respondent before her family, friends, colleagues and professional circles. The Appellant submitted that the effect/consequence of the decision of this Court in Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Supra) - a decision which states the law regarding the award of damages to an employee for the termination of an employment contract - is that an employee cannot be awarded anything beyond payment in lieu of notice. A careful reading of the Betty Tinkamanyire decision does not support the Appellant's argument. What the decision propounds is as follows: i. An employee who is dismissed unlaw{ully is not entitled to the amount of money they would have earned had they not been dismissed. ii. An employee who is dismissed without notice is entitled to palrnent of the monetary value of the period that was necessary to give proper notice of the termination which is commonly known in law as compensation in lieu of notice. iii. Where an employee is dismissed in a manner that is abusive or unfair, they might have a claim for aggravated damages as compensation in addition to compensation in lieu of notice. Damages can be awarded as compensation for distress arising lrom the manner in which the defendant committed the wrong. The decision did not propound anything to the effect that general damages cannot be paid to a wrongfully dismissed employee beyond what is due to them as paS,.rnent in lieu of notice. As a matter of 10 15 20 25 30 /7 5 fact, the Court awarded aggravated damages to the employee. In the words of Kanyeihamba JSC: The acts of the Appellant (employer) were not only unlawful but were degrading and callous. In my view, a good case has been shown for the respondent to be eligible for the award of aggravated damages. The same principle regarding damages beyond payment in lieu of notice had been enunciated earlier by the East African Court in Obongo Vs Municipal Council of Kisumu8. wherc court held that: 10 15 It is well established that when damages are at e and a court is making a general award, it may take into account factors such as malice or arrogance on the part ofthe defendant and this is regarded as increasing the iniurv suffered by the plaintiff, as, 20 for example, by causing him humiliation or distress. 25 Damages enhanced on account ofsuch aggravation are regarded as still being essentially compensatory in nature. On the other hand, exemplary damages are completely outside the field of compensation and although the benefit goes to the person who was wronged, their object is entirely punitive. Arising from my discussions above, I come to the conclusion that in some circumstances, in addition to payment of the contractually agreed upon amount in lieu of notice, courts can order the employer to pay damages to compensate for sufferinq arising out of the manner in which the termination of the contract was effected. A court exercises its discretion to determine whether to award general or aggravated damages. Proceeding under Article L32 l4l of the Constitution which allows this Court to depart from its own judgments, I depart from this Court's earlier decision in Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited vs. Deogratius Asiimwe'r where it was held that where an employee's 30 35 3 [1971] EA 91. e sccA No.18 0f 2018 16 ,d 5 contract is terminated unlawfullg but the employer makes payment in lieu of notice in line with the contract of employment, no additional general damages can be awarded. And that pagment in lieu of notice is preciselg uhat general damages would address or atone if such compensation had not been paid to the emplogee. 10 15 Conclusion and orders Arising from the above analysis, I uphold the award of general damages in the sum of Ug. Shs. 15O,000,000/=. I would dismiss the appeal and award costs to the Respondent. I would also award costs in the courts below to the Respondent. c1 tb. 6{5 v<.nnL=-.r Dated at Kampala this day of 2023. 20 f, '",ra "^-\<nn^r"--"--' PROF. LILLIAN TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. 25 j.^.\rr^rs-*b &t"'o'=Q q\ &"0"-t "S \t---. 17 rE \ uGr3 :R:S THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA TA KAMPALA (Coram: Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Tuhaise, Chibita, Musoke, JJ.SC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2022 UGANDA POST LIMITED .APPELLANT VERSUS CONSOLATE MUKADISI................ ........RESPONDENT (An Appeal liom the decision of the Court ol'Appcal at Karnpala Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2018 datcd lOtr' March 2022 bclirre Cheborion Barishaki. Musota. Madrama. .l.lA) .IUDGMENT OF MWONDHA JSC. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my learned sister Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JSC. I concur with the analysis and decision, that this appeal would fail. I also concur with the orders proposed. Decision of the Court Since all the Justices o proposed therein. Dated at Kampala this n the Coram concur, the Appeal is dismissed with the orders ]3 tt day of .. t'*Io,.rer:+Sgez:. Mwondha Justice of the Supreme Court. THE REPUBLTC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (CORAM: MWONDHA; TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA; TUHAISE; CHIBITA; tr,lUSOKE; IISC) CIVIL APPEAL NO.13 OF 2OZZ UGANDA POST LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS CONSOLATE MUKADISI RESPONDENT [Appeal nising from the decision of tlu Court of Appeal nt Kanrynla before Hon. ]trstices cheboion Bnrishnki, stephen Musotn nnd Chistopher Mndrnnn, JlA, in Cit il Appenl No. 251 of20'18, dnted 10il' March 20221 IUDGME NT OF TUH AISE, ISC. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the Judgment prePared by -y learned sister Hon. Prof. Justice Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, ISC. I agree with her decision and conclusions that the appeal be dismissed with costs to the Respondent. lr1 'J= N!^ur 2023. Dated at Kampala, this day of Percy Night Tuhaise ]ustice of the Supreme Court THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPAI.A (CORAM: MWONDHA TIBATENTWA.EKIRIKUBINZ,T TUIIAISE; CHIBIT& MUSOKE; JI.SC) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 13 OF 2022 UGANDAPOST LIMITED APPELI.ANT VERSUS CONSOI.{TE MUKADISI RESPONDENT lAn appal fronz the decision of the but of Appal at lGmpah bforc: 6totz. Jwticcs: chchrio, Baishaki, Stephen Mwoa and Chrisaphcr Madnn4 lI4 in Avil AppI No. lil of l0I8 dared 1O Merch,20221 ruDG MENT OF CHIB IT,dISC I have ha<l the benelit ol'rea<ling in drali the judgment prepiued by my learned sister, Hon. .Justit:e ljllian 'l'ibatcmwa-I,lkirikubirua,JSC ar)d I agree with her rcasoning arr<l hcr cont lusiorr. I also aglee rvith the oxlers that she has propose(|. 3a*u 2023 <lay ol' \-\- Hon..fustice Mike Chibita ruSTICE OF TIIE SUPRET,IE COURT f)ate<l at Kampala this FJs-lgh4€,r THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 013 OF 2022 UGANDA POST LIMITED: : : :: : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :APPELLANT VERSUS CONSOLATE MUKADISI: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : RESPoNDENT (Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Cheborion, Musota and Madrama, JJA) in Civil Appeal No. 251 of 20iB dated jOh March, 2022) CORAM: HON. LADY JUSTICE FAITH MWONDHA, JSC HON. LADY JUSTICE PROF. LILLIAN TIBATEMWA _ EKTRIKUBINZA, JSC HON. LADY JUSTICE PERCY TUHAISE, JSC HON. MR. ]USTICE MIKE CHIBITA, JSC HON. LADY JUSTTCE ELIZABETH MUSOKE, JSC JUD GMENT O F ELIZABETH MUSO KE, JSC I have had the advantage of reading in draft the;udgment of my learned sister Prof. Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, ISC and I concur with the analysis leading to her conclusion that the appeal be dismissed with costs, here and in the Courts below, to the respondent. Dated ar Kampata ,n,, I Y.. ouy or. Elizabeth Musoke lustice of the Supreme Court fr.-tctr.a-A.,. 2023.