Industrial Court Affirms That Prolonged Acting Appointments of an Employee Without Objection and Apparent Qualifications Imply Full Employment, Warranting Full Salary and Terminal Benefits

Legal brief on  the case of Uganda Civil Aviation Authority v Ojiambo Samuel (Labour Dispute Appeal No 011 of 2021) [2025] UGIC 36 (29 April 2025)

Duration

The decision was rendered on 29th April 2025.

Area of Law

Employment Law.

Representatives

Before the Presiding Judge and Panel:

Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana – Presiding Judge

Panelists:

Hon. Jimmy Musimbi

Hon. Emmanuel Bigirimana

Hon. Can Amos Lapenga

Legal Representation

For the Appellant (UCAA):

Ms. S & L Advocates (represented in court by Mr. Ferdinand Musimenta)

For the Respondent (Ojiambo Samuel):

Mr. Robert Irumba of TIAM Advocates (represented in court by Mr. Jotham Assimwe).

Introduction

Prolonged acting appointments without objection and apparent qualification render or implicitly confirm the position of an employee, who should, therefore, receive full salary and terminal benefits for the position implicitly imposed. This emphasises and confirms automatic confirmation, fair labour practices, and the enforceability of CBA provisions in Labour Law.

Background of the Case

Mr. Ojiambo Samuel was employed by UCAA and served in various capacities, eventually acting as CFO from February 2012 until his resignation in August 2018. He claimed he was entitled to confirmation as CFO under Article 20 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which provided for automatic confirmation after 12 months of acting. Upon resignation, his terminal benefits were calculated based on his substantive position as Deputy Fire Officer (DFO), not CFO. Dissatisfied, he lodged a complaint with the labour officer (ACIR), who ruled in his favour. UCAA appealed the decision.

Issues Raised

1)    Whether the Respondent was serving as CFO by the time he resigned.

2)    Whether he was entitled to terminal benefits based on the CFO position.

3)    Whether the Respondent met the qualifications for the CFO position.

4)    Whether the Labour Officer properly evaluated the evidence, especially regarding qualifications and acting allowance.

5)    Whether the award was just and legally sustainable.

Highlights

1)    Serving in an acting position for over six years, without any written objection or communication from the employer (UCAA), triggers automatic confirmation under Article 20(e) of the CBA. The silence creates a legitimate expectation of confirmation.

2)    Failure to inform the employee that they are not unqualified, despite being in charge of HR acts as a waiver to claims of deficiencies against the Employee.

3)     The doctrine of legitimate expectation and fair labour practices stresses that ambiguities in employment relationships must favour the employee.

4)    Provisions in CBAs are binding and enforceable under Ugandan labour law.

5)    It is inequitable to expect an employee to perform the duties of a superior post without the matching remuneration.

6)    The use of prolonged acting appointments as a method of exploiting employees was condemned.

Resolution of Issues

Issue 1: Whether the Respondent was serving as CFO by the time he resigned?

It was undisputed that the Respondent was appointed Acting CFO on 1st February 2012, and served until his resignation on 24th August 2018 (para [35]).

The CBA (Article 20) provided for automatic confirmation into the acting role if the employee served for over 12 months and no objection was raised, subject to meeting requirements (paras [40]–[42]).

UCAA failed to provide documented objections or formally communicate any concerns over six years of acting service (paras [45], [49]). The Court therefore found the Respondent was entitled to confirmation as substantive CFO after the 1st of February 2013, the Respondent had been disadvantaged by remaining in an acting capacity for six years over and above the 12 months stipulated in the CBA.” (para [56]).

The issue was answered in Affirmative.

Issue 2: Whether the Respondent’s terminal benefits should be computed on the salary of the CFO?

The Labour Officer had ordered that terminal benefits be computed using the CFO’s pay. The Court agreed, referencing the CBA Article 20(e) which stated that once confirmation is deemed, all benefits follow the new position (paras [40], [66(ii)]).

UCAA’s claim that the Respondent was receiving only an acting allowance did not negate his entitlement after the confirmation period lapsed without objection (paras [54], [62]). Hence the Court declared that the Respondent is entitled to UGX 305,226,743.21 as the difference in terminal benefits computed at the position of CFO as opposed to DFO.” (para [66(ii)].

The issue was answered in Affirmative.

Issue 3: Whether the Respondent fulfilled the academic requirements for the CFO position?

UCAA argued the Respondent lacked the required Bachelor’s degree, but the evidence was inconsistent. The Respondent had presented appraisals and testimony indicating he held a BBA from Makerere (2011), PGD in Public Admin (2013), and a Master’s degree (2015) (para [44]).

UCAA did not present a job description or definitive evidence that a degree was required, nor did they dispute or respond to the Respondent’s degree claims (paras [45], [47]). The Court stated that except for Mr. Bamwesigye’s remarks on the June 2012 appraisal, it did not find that the Appellant has presented any other persuasive evidence of the requirements for the position of CFO.” (para [45]).

The issue was answered in Affirmative.

Issue 4: Whether the Labour Officer failed to properly evaluate the evidence?

The Court accepted the Labour Officer’s evaluation that acting for over 12 months without objection triggered confirmation under the CBA (para [49]). The Court emphasized that industrial jurisprudence resolves ambiguities in favor of the employee – “in dubio pro operario” (para [49]). The absence of UCAA’s objections and their silence supported the LO’s conclusion.

The approach to ambiguity in industrial jurisprudence is to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the employee.” (para [49]).

The issue was answered in Affirmative.

Issue 5: Whether the award for salary arrears and benefits was justified?

The Labour Officer had awarded UGX 239,700,942 as salary arrears. The Court adjusted this to UGX 166,017,655 after accounting for the 22.5% acting allowance already paid (paras [60]–[62]). The Court found the revised computation more precise and in line with documented salary scales (para [59]). The Court declared that ACIR’s award of salary arrears stands confirmed and modified and the Respondent is entitled to UGX 166,017,655/= in salary arrears. (para [66(i)]). The award of UGX 305,226,743.21/= as terminal benefits based on CFO position was upheld.

The issue was answered in negative.

Ruling

1)    The Court held that prolonged acting appointments without objection and with the fulfillment of qualifications justify confirmation to the substantive role.

2)    The appeal succeeded only in part, specifically on the quantum of salary arrears, which was recalculated.

3)    The Respondent was awarded UGX 166,017,655/= as salary arrears (modified from UGX 239,700,942/=).

4)    The award of UGX 305,226,743.21/= as terminal benefits based on CFO position was upheld.

5)    No order for costs was made.

Key Takeaways

1. Acting for >12 months without objection triggers confirmation under collective agreements (Article 20 CBA).

2. Employer silence creates enforceable rights to full salary/benefits.

3. Employers waive qualification objections by allowing prolonged acting service.

Recommendations for Employers

1. Review acting appointment clauses; cap durations (e.g., 6–12 months).

2. Formalize qualification objections during acting periods.

Quoting from Judgment:

"An employer cannot indefinitely benefit from an employee’s higher-grade service while denying commensurate pay. Equity abhors such exploitation."

Conclusion

This decision arrives at a time when Uganda faces legal scrutiny over the constitutionality of acting appointments, especially in the judiciary.

In Dr. Busingye Kabumba & Andrew Karamagi v Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2022, the Constitutional Court held that the appointment of judges in acting capacity for two years violates Articles 2, 128, 138, 142, and 144 of the Constitution.

That decision emphasized the importance of security of tenure and independence of judicial officers, mirroring the Industrial Court’s concern over prolonged acting roles in employment.

In both contexts, Ugandan jurisprudence is moving toward curbing abuse of temporary appointments to promote accountability, fair labour standards, and constitutional integrity.

The Industrial Court's emphasis that prolonged acting appointments without objection and with the fulfilment of qualifications justify confirmation to the substantive role.

By Sylivia Nandawula