Industrial Court Clarifies That Removal of an Employee's Work Tools Without Due Process Constitutes Unlawful Dismissal

 Facts

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, a supply chain solutions company, as a truck driver from 17 July 2013, earning UGX 464,615 per month and assigned to truck registration No. UAK 564G.

In the first week of April 2017, while transporting lubricant drums from Kampala to Kibali, DRC, two drums went missing after URA officials at the Luwero Weighbridge found the seals broken. The Claimant reported the loss to the Police, notified the Respondent's Transport Officer, and involved URA and the insurer. After URA replaced the seals, he completed the delivery and returned the truck to the Respondent's Kololo premises.

The Claimant testified that on 6 May 2017, he was directed, through the Assistant Transport Manager, acting on the Human Resource Manager's (HRM's) instructions, to surrender the truck keys, uniform, helmet, safety shoes and other company property, remove his belongings, and leave, without being given any reason. He treated this as a verbal termination. He said he repeatedly sought a termination letter and certificate of service, was told to resign and reapply (which he refused), and that mediation before the KCCA Labour Office failed.

The Respondent denied dismissing him, contending instead that the Claimant recorded a statement on his return, was expected to assist with an internal investigation and the Respondent's insurance claim regarding the missing drums, and then absconded from duty on 6 May 2017, frustrating both the investigation and the insurance claim.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

For the Claimant

Mr. Henry Muhangi of MBS Advocates.

For the Respondent

Ms. Getrude Mutesi of Reeve Advocates.

Submissions of the Parties

The Claimant's Submissions

Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Respondent unlawfully and unfairly dismissed the Claimant contrary to Sections 66 and 68 of the Employment Act, 2006.

He argued that the Claimant was simply ordered to surrender all company property and leave the workplace without any written notice, explanation or disciplinary hearing. Counsel submitted that the Respondent's own witnesses admitted that no disciplinary proceedings were ever conducted.

Relying on Hot Loaf Bakery Ltd v Ndungutse & 28 Others [2023] UGCA 97, counsel submitted that even where summary dismissal may be justified, an employer must still accord the employee a fair hearing before terminating employment.

Regarding the allegation of abscondment, counsel submitted that the evidence instead demonstrated constructive dismissal. He argued that the Claimant dutifully reported the missing lubricant drums to the Police and the employer, completed the DRC assignment, returned the truck and repeatedly sought clarification from management after being directed to surrender company property.

Counsel further submitted that the Respondent's witnesses contradicted the allegation that the Claimant absconded with company property. He therefore contended that the Respondent's conduct amounted to dismissal and not desertion.

On remedies, counsel prayed for a declaration that the dismissal was unlawful; severance pay; terminal benefits; compensation for loss of earnings; general damages; interest; and costs.

The Respondent's Submissions

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Claimant was never dismissed.

She argued that after the loss of the lubricant drums, the Claimant was merely expected to assist in investigations before resuming his duties but instead absconded from work.

Relying on Coca Cola East & Central Africa Ltd v Maria Kagai Ligaga and Byanju v Board of Governors St Augustine College Wakiso, counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to establish the ingredients necessary for constructive dismissal.

She further argued that the Claimant became unreachable after returning from the DRC assignment, frustrated the Respondent's disciplinary investigations and insurance claim and therefore could not benefit from his own misconduct.

Counsel also submitted that under the employment contract the Claimant bore responsibility for goods under his custody and accordingly prayed that the entire claim be dismissed with costs.

Court's Findings

On the burden and standard of proof

The Court reiterated that under Section 69(6) of the Employment Act, the burden of proving that a dismissal occurred rests on the employee, while the burden of justifying its lawfulness rests on the employer. The Court noted the standard is the balance of probabilities, but at a threshold lower than ordinary civil proof, the employer need only show a genuine and justified belief in the employee's culpability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On lawfulness of dismissal and procedural and substantive fairness

The Court restated that a lawful dismissal requires both Procedural fairness, written notice, adequate time to prepare a defence, particulars of the allegations, and an explanation of hearing rights (citing Ebiju v Umeme Ltd); and Substantive fairness a credible, verifiable reason amounting to a fundamental breach of contract, tested through a hearing (citing Uganda Breweries Ltd v Kigula).

On whether the Claimant was dismissed

The Court found there was no suspension letter, no disciplinary notice, and no termination letter issued at any point. It held that by directing the Claimant to surrender the truck keys, uniform, helmet, safety shoes and other equipment and to leave without explanation, the Respondent had effectively denied him work contrary to Section 39 EA (the employer's duty to provide work) and Section 44(3) EA (the duty to supply tools and equipment necessary for the job).

The Court characterised the removal of an employee's work tools as "a deliberately oppressive labour practice," treating it as strong evidence of breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence, drawing on its own precedent in Granada Hotels Uganda Limited v Tayssiir Zereli and on the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, where cutting off an employee's work tools without disciplinary justification was found to alter the "essential character" of the employment relationship.

The Court observed that "the Claimant, employed as a driver, was left driverless" and concluded that this deprivation of his tools of work itself constituted the act of dismissal.

On abscondment

The Court reviewed its own precedents (Ahimbisibwe v Holy Family Virika Hospital Limited; Ejong Judith v Makerere Business Institute), establishing that an employer alleging abscondment bears the burden of proving reasonable, documented follow-up efforts to contact the employee. The Court found the Respondent's evidence, general assertions of unreturned calls, an untraceable police reference, and no call logs, notices to show cause, or written invitations to a hearing, fell well short of that threshold. By contrast, the Claimant's account of contacting the Operations Manager and attending a follow-up meeting with the HRM and Legal Officer was largely undisplaced.

The Court concluded the Respondent had not proved abscondment, and that the same facts which established dismissal necessarily defeated the abscondment defence.

On remedies

The Court declined to award the claimed UGX 94,781,460 as terminal benefits.

It held that terminal benefits are contractual and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved like special damages.

The Court criticised the Claimant's approach, observing:

"The Claimant threw a figure at the Court in the hope that the Court might drift in the general direction of awarding the sum of terminal benefits. That is not the law."

Nevertheless, the Court awarded statutory entitlements that had been sufficiently established.

On General damages

The Court reiterated that general damages remain available in employment disputes where dismissal is unlawful. Considering the Claimant's salary, length of service and surrounding circumstances, it awarded general damages equivalent to approximately twelve months' salary.

Awarded UGX 5,575,380 (approximately one year's salary), applying the principles in Peter Katongole v Airtel Uganda Limited and Mutwazagye Nicholas v Electoral Commission, age, length of service, salary, employability and manner of dismissal. The Court distinguished the higher awards in Aguti as proportionate to the much higher salaries earned by those claimants.

HOLDING

The Industrial Court entered judgment for the Claimant and made the following orders:

1. Declared that the Claimant's dismissal was both unlawful and unfair.

2. Awarded UGX 1,805,554 as severance allowance under Section 86(a) EA at one month's salary per year of service.

3. Awarded UGX 464,615 as payment in lieu of notice (one month's salary) under Clause 17(c) of the contract and Section 57(3)(b) EA.

4. Awarded UGX 5,575,380 as general damages.

5. Dismissed the claim for UGX 94,781,460 in terminal benefits for failure to specifically plead and prove entitlement.

6. Rejected the claim for UGX 150,000,000 for loss of future earnings as speculative, citing Akiror v International Food Policy Research Institute.

7. Awarded to the Claimant, the Court finding the Respondent had misconducted itself by removing work tools and failing to complete a disciplinary process (citing Kalule v GIZ GMBH).

   
   

Read more

Said Kiriggwajjo v Union Logistics Uganda Limited 2026 UGIC 79 (17 July 2026).pdf

Download PDF • 1.62MB

Key Takeaways

1. An instruction to surrender a company vehicle's keys, uniform, and safety equipment, even absent a formal termination letter, may be treated by the Industrial Court as an act of dismissal, not a neutral administrative step, where it leaves the employee unable to perform the job.

2. "Temporary relief from duty" must be documented. Employers who intend to suspend an employee pending investigation must issue a clear suspension notice. Silence, verbal instructions, and the absence of any written communication expose the employer to a finding of dismissal by conduct.

3. Abscondment is not a self-proving defence. An employer alleging abscondment must adduce concrete evidence of reasonable follow-up, call logs, written notices to show cause, invitation letters to a disciplinary hearing, or police correspondence. Bare assertions that an employee "became unreachable" will not suffice.

4. Even where an employer has a genuine and serious concern (here, missing goods and a rejected insurance claim), it must still comply with Sections 65–68 of the Employment Act, written notice, a hearing, and a right of response, before dismissal will be treated as lawful.

5. Terminal benefits claims must be particularised. Lump-sum claims for terminal benefits without a breakdown (e.g., specific unpaid public holidays, agreed overtime rates, contractual formulae) will be rejected outright, even where the underlying dismissal is found unlawful. Only statutory minimums (severance, notice pay) will be awarded absent proper proof.

6. Where dismissal is found to be unlawful or unfair, the Court may award general damages for non-pecuniary loss, including emotional distress, reputational injury and mental anguish, taking into account factors such as salary, length of service, employability and the manner of termination.