The Industrial Court of Uganda has reaffirmed that employees who report wrongdoing in good faith are protected from retaliatory termination. Dismissals issued after a DPP clearance need high scrutiny
- Waboga David
- Dec 11, 2025
- 6 min read
⚖️ Legal Alert: Unlawful Termination of a Whistleblower
Case Name: ARNOLD OLWENY BONAVENTURE V. UGANDA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
Court: THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
Coram:
Hon. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana (presiding), and
Panelists: Hon. Can Amos Lapenga, Hon. Emmanuel Bigirimana, and Hon. Oling Kerjew.
Facts
The Claimant, Arnold Olweny Bonaventure, was employed by the Respondent, Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (UCAA), as a Security Assistant at Entebbe International Airport since August 12, 2010. On August 18, 2017, he acted as a whistleblower by alerting his supervisor and Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) staff to suspicious activity involving a passenger attempting to smuggle 12 rhino horns. This led to the passenger's arrest.
Despite his role in exposing the smuggling, the Claimant was falsely implicated. He was arrested on August 21, 2017, released on police bond, and suspended on half pay on August 31, 2017, for allegedly facilitating the smuggling. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) reviewed security footage, discharged him from criminal proceedings, and confirmed his whistleblower status.
However, the Respondent's Disciplinary Committee (DC) proceeded with a hearing, which the Claimant objected to on grounds of impartiality. He was terminated on February 16, 2018, without a fair hearing. His appeal to the Managing Director was rejected on January 6, 2018 (noted as February in some parts, likely a typographical error). The Claimant earned UGX 2,163,150 per month (annual: UGX 25,957,800) at termination and had served for approximately seven to eight years.
He filed a complaint with the Labour Officer (EMC/LC/001/2020), who ruled the termination unlawful and awarded severance, notice pay, gratuity, leave pay, and compensation. The Labour Officer referred issues of general damages, exemplary damages, and costs to the Industrial Court. The Claimant sought UGX 300,000,000 (up to UGX 500,000,000) in general damages, repayment of a UGX 30,000,000 salary loan with Absa Bank, exemplary damages, 21% interest, and costs, alleging breach of contract, procedural unfairness, reputational damage, emotional distress, and humiliation.
The Respondent denied the claims, asserting the termination was fair and procedural, but failed to appear at the hearing on July 2, 2024, leading to ex parte proceedings.
Issues
The Court adopted the joint scheduling memorandum with two interrelated issues for determination:
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the benefits and prayers sought in the Memorandum of Claim (MOC)?
What remedies are available to the parties?
These arose from the Labour Officer's referral under Section 4 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, Cap. 227, specifically focusing on general damages, exemplary damages, and costs.
The Court interpreted its referral jurisdiction as attending to matters directed to it, allowing it to resolve referred issues while leaving undisturbed the Labour Officer's findings on other remedies (e.g., severance and notice pay).
Submissions
Claimant's Submissions (by Mr. Sadat Bbale)
On General Damages
He argued that damages restore the aggrieved to their pre-breach position, considering loss of profit, inconvenience, mental distress, and pain (citing Charles Acire v M. Engola HCCS 143 of 1993 and Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venanio Baweyana Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007). Sought UGX 500,000,000, plus UGX 50,965,776 as equivalent to 72 months' lost salary, emphasizing malice and arrogance by the Respondent (citing Kapio Simon v Centenary Bank Ltd LDC 003 of 2015).
On Salary Loan Repayment
He requested the Respondent pay off the UGX 30,000,000 Absa Bank loan, as unlawful termination disrupted salary-dependent repayments (citing Florence Mufumbo v UDB LDC No. 138 of 2014 and Okello v Rift Valley Railways (U) LTD HCCS No. 195 of 2009).
On Exemplary Damages
He sought punitive damages for misconduct, including unlawful arrest, interrogation, denial of fair hearing (violating Section 66 of the Employment Act and constitutional rights), and causing anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment (citing Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Katamirike [2012] UGCA 3 and El Termewy v Awdi & Ors [2015] UGHCCD 4).
On Interest and Costs
He requested 21% interest on general damages from the termination date due to inflation, and costs under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282, as the Labour Officer's ruling favored the Claimant.
Respondent's Submissions
The Respondent denied the allegations in its defense, asserting fair process and no entitlement to reliefs. However, no submissions were filed or presented at the hearing, as the matter proceeded ex parte under Order 9 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Court summarized and considered the Claimant's unchallenged submissions and witness statement dated March 27, 2022.
Legal Representation
For the Claimant, Mr. Sadat Bbale of Bbale & Partners.
For the Respondent, Mr. Joseph Okwalinga of the Respondent’s Law Chambers.
Court's Findings
The Court analyzed the referred issues, applying principles from recent precedents like Uganda Post Limited v Mukadisi [2023] UGSC 58, Sserunjogi v Guinness Transporters Limited Ta Safe Boda [2024] UGIC 73, Mutwazagye Nicholas v Electoral Commission [2025] UGCA 290, and Stanbic Bank (U) Limited v Okou [2023] UGCA 100. It upheld the Labour Officer's finding of unlawful termination and focused on damages.
On Unlawful and Unfair Termination (Procedural and Substantive Fairness)
The termination violated Section 65 of the Employment Act, as the Claimant was not given proper notice of allegations or a fair hearing.
"Where an employee is being considered for dismissal for poor performance or misconduct, under Section 65EA, the employer must set out the reasons for the dismissal. This Court considers these twin tenets to be procedural and substantive fairness."
The oral notification was insufficient, lacking details on allegations, rights to respond, accompaniment, or cross-examination (citing Ebiju v Umeme Ltd [2015] UGHCCD 15). Substantively, the Respondent failed to prove the dismissal reason, relying inconsistently on CCTV and reports. The Court left the Labour Officer's findings undisturbed due to lack of challenge.
On General Damages
The Court awarded as solatium for non-economic harm (emotional distress, mental anguish, reputational damage) under Mukadisi principles.
"General damages are awarded to compensate the employee for non-economic harm and distress caused by the wrongful dismissal. These damages include compensation for emotional distress, mental anguish, damage to reputation, and any other non-monetary harm suffered due to the dismissal."
The Court considered factors like salary (UGX 25,957,800 annually), service length (7-8 years), manner of termination, and employability (Claimant aged 37 at termination). Declined higher amounts as speculative and exceeding earnings (citing Standard Chartered Bank v Makoko [2025] UGCA 115 and Kapio). Awarded UGX 25,957,800 (one year's salary).
On Salary Loan Repayment
The Court declined due to lack of referral by the Labour Officer and insufficient evidence (no loan documents provided).
"The Court ought to review the loan documents to establish the nexus between the loan and the salary. There is no blanket principle," citing Okou and Musimenta Mugisha Rogers v Equity Bank Uganda Ltd LDR 187 of 2017.
On Exemplary Damages
The Court declined, as the Respondent's conduct was unfair but not "egregious" (outrageous, shocking the conscience).
"Egregious conduct is conspicuously, glaringly, or staggeringly flagrant, a kind of outrageous conduct that shocks the conscience of the court, citing Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited v Citi Bank Uganda Limited [2022] UGCommC 98).
General damages sufficed as consolation; no evidence of malice warranting punishment, citing DFCU Bank Limited v Donna Kamuli [2019] UGCA 2088.
On Interest and Costs
The Court awarded interest at 17% per annum on general damages from the award date (under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Costs granted to the Claimant due to the Respondent's abandonment of proceedings, as an exception in employment disputes (citing Kalule v Deutsche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH).
Holding
The claim succeeds in part. The Court awarded:
General damages of UGX 25,957,800, with interest at 17% per annum from December 9, 2025, until payment in full.
Costs of the claim to the Claimant.
Prayers for salary loan repayment and exemplary damages were dismissed.
Key Takeaways
Whistleblower Protections in Employment
Employees acting in good faith as whistleblowers (e.g., reporting smuggling) should not face retaliatory termination. Courts will scrutinize dismissals post-DPP clearance, emphasizing procedural safeguards.
Procedural and Substantive Fairness Mandatory
Under Section 65 of the Employment Act, employers must provide written notice of allegations, hearing rights, and proof of misconduct. Oral notifications or inconsistent evidence lead to findings of unfairness.
Damages in Wrongful Termination
General damages are available for non-economic harm but are capped reasonably (e.g., one year's salary here) to avoid speculation or exceeding earnings. Exemplary damages require "egregious" conduct, not mere unfairness.
Evidence Requirements for Loans
Claims for salary loan repayment need documentary proof linking the loan to employment; unlawful termination alone is insufficient.
Referral Jurisdiction Limits
Industrial Courts resolve only referred issues from Labour Officers, underscoring the importance of clear referrals.
Consequences of Non-Appearance
Proceeding ex parte can result in unchallenged evidence and costs awards against the absent party.
Interest and Costs in Employment Disputes
Interest rates (here 17%) reflect economic factors; costs are exceptional but granted for misconduct like abandoning proceedings.
Read the full case
.jpg)
Comments