Upholding The Rule Of Law in Employment: Lessons from the Fridaus Nambi v. Knight Frank Uganda Ltd - Labour Dispute No.074 of 2024

Lawpointuganda
Jun 18
7 min read

Fridaus Nambi

Introduction

The rule of law is the bedrock of any functional society and is especially critical in the realm of employment relations. It ensures that both employers and employees operate within a framework of fairness, transparency, and accountability. In Uganda, as in many jurisdictions, the Employment Act and principles of natural justice serve as guiding lights for resolving workplace disputes.

A recent case before the District Labour Office of Uganda at Kampala Capital City

Authority (Central Division)—Fridaus Nambi v. Knight Frank Uganda Limited, Labour Dispute No. 074 of 2024—offers a compelling study in how the rule of law is applied to protect employee rights and ensure procedural justice. This article explores the facts, legal arguments, findings, and implications of this landmark decision, drawing out lessons for employers, employees, and legal practitioners.

Background: The Parties and the Dispute

The dispute arose when Ms. Fridaus Nambi, an accomplished Lawyer and then employee of Knight Frank Uganda Limited, challenged her dismissal as unlawful and unfair. The case was presided over by Ms. Ruth Kulabako Namaarwa, with Mr. Enos Buluma (M.A Kajubi & Co Advocates) representing the claimant and Mr. Victor Ntamugabumwe (Signum Advocates) appearing for the respondent.

The Claimant’s Journey

Ms. Nambi’s tenure at Knight Frank began in June 2017 as a Front Desk Manager. Through hard work and dedication, she rose through the ranks, eventually serving as Legal Assistant from March 2020 until her dismissal in September 2024. Her career was marked by outstanding performance, as evidenced by multiple commendations, including being named “Employee of the Year 2022,” and receiving both a bonus and a pay raise in subsequent years.

The Dismissal

Despite her stellar record, Ms. Nambi was dismissed in September 2024. The stated reasons included harmful gossip about senior management, intimidation of a colleague, poor performance, misuse of company resources, and confidentiality breaches. However, the process leading to her dismissal was fraught with inconsistencies, malice and procedural irregularities, raising serious questions about the fairness and legality of the termination.

The Legal Framework: Employment Act and Natural Justice

Uganda’s Employment Act, 2006 provides a comprehensive legal structure governing employment relationship. Key provisions relevant to this case include:

• Section 2: Broad definition of “employer,” capturing successors and related entities.

• Section 58(1): Right to payment in lieu of notice.

• Sections 87 & 89: Entitlement to severance allowance.

• Section 78(1): Compensation for unfair termination.

• Section 65(4): Four weeks’ wage for certain dismissals.

• Section 77(1): Additional compensation for procedural and substantive illegality.

• Section 67: Requirement for specific reasons for termination.

Alongside statutory law, the principles of natural justice—notably the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the requirement for impartial decision-makers— are foundational to employment dispute resolution.

Key Issues and Contentions

The Claimant’s Allegations

Ms. Nambi’s case centered on several critical contentions:

1. Lack of Legal Representation: She was denied the right to be represented by counsel during the disciplinary hearing.

2. Impartiality Concerns: The disciplinary committee included complainants, undermining objectivity.

3. Insufficient Preparation Time: She was not given adequate time to prepare her defense.

4. Vague Allegations: The accusations lacked specificity.

5. Uncompensated Duties: She performed Head of Legal duties without corresponding remuneration.

6. Pressure to Resign: Management advised her to resign if she felt disgruntled when she requested additional staffing and additional pay.

7. Resignation and Retraction: She resigned due to frustration but retracted after assurances from the MD, only to be dismissed soon thereafter.

8. No Investigation Report: She was not provided with any investigation findings.

9. Late Disclosure of Evidence: Incriminating statements were only revealed on the hearing date.

10. No Cross-Examination: She was denied the opportunity to question witnesses.

The Respondent’s Defense

Knight Frank Uganda Limited countered as follows:

1. The hearing was adjourned to accommodate the claimant.

2. The claimant appeared with a representative of her choice.

3. Her tasks were within her contractual scope.

4. Witnesses were available for cross-examination, but the claimant chose not to engage.

5. The dismissal was based on verifiable misconduct.

6. Prior to March 2020, the claimant was employed by a sister company, not the respondent.

The Labour Office’s Analysis: Applying the Rule of Law

1. Corporate Veil and Employment Nexus

A preliminary issue was whether the claimant’s service with Knight Frank Facilities Management (a sister company) should be considered in the dispute against Knight Frank Uganda Limited. The Labour Office, invoking Section 2 of the Employment Act, established that both entities are treated as one employer for the purposes of resolving the complaint. This approach aligns with the principle of substance over form, ensuring that technicalities do not defeat substantive justice.

2. Procedural Illegality and Natural Justice Violations

a) Defective Disciplinary Process

A glaring irregularity was the timing of the disciplinary summons. The claimant was summoned on 10th September 2024 for alleged misconduct that was only formally raised on 11th September 2024. This sequence violated the fundamental requirement that an employee must be given proper notice of the allegations against them before any disciplinary action is taken.

b) Impartiality of the Committee

The inclusion of complainants in the disciplinary committee was a direct affront to the principle of impartiality. Citing Marvin Bararuha v. Attorney General, HCMA No. 149 of 2016, the Labour Office emphasized that even the appearance of bias is sufficient to invalidate disciplinary proceedings. The presence of interested parties on the committee created a substantial likelihood of bias, rendering the process unfair.

c) Inconsistent and Unspecified Allegations

The reasons for Ms. Nambi’s dismissal differed materially from the allegations for which she was summoned and heard. This shifting of charges undermined her ability to mount an effective defense and contravened Section 67 of the Employment Act, which requires that employees be given specific reasons for termination. Furthermore, the allegations lacked the necessary particulars, denying her a fair opportunity to respond.

3. Substantive Illegality: Lack of Justifiable Cause

Perhaps most damning was the absence of substantive justification for the dismissal. Ms. Nambi’s record was exemplary—she had been recognized as “Employee of the Year,” awarded bonuses, and granted a pay raise. There was no evidence of a performance appraisal or placement on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) prior to her dismissal for alleged poor performance. The Labour Office found this contradiction unsustainable and concluded that the dismissal lacked justifiable cause.

Remedies and Recommendations

Recognizing both procedural and substantive illegalities, the Labour Office awarded Ms. Nambi a comprehensive package of remedies, meticulously referencing the relevant sections of the Employment Act:

Remedies Awarded

• Payment in lieu of notice: UGX 2,750,000 (Section 58(1), Employment Act, 2006)

• Severance allowance: UGX 11,000,000 (Sections 87 & 89, Employment Act, 2006; Dona Kimuli v. DFCU)

• Basic and additional compensation: UGX 8,250,000 (Section 78(1), Employment Act, 2006)

• Four weeks’ wage: UGX 2,750,000 (Section 65(4), Employment Act, 2006)

• Additional compensation for procedural and substantive illegality: UGX 2,750,000 (Section 77(1), Employment Act, 2006)

Total compensation awarded:

UGX 27,500,000 (Twenty-Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Uganda Shillings only)

Further Recommendations

• The claimant was advised to pursue claims for costs of the suit, exemplary damages, general damages, and punitive damages before the Industrial Court, as these fall outside the Labour Office’s primary jurisdiction.

The Broader Significance: Lessons for Employers and Employees

1. The Primacy of Due Process

This case underscores the non-negotiable requirement for due process in disciplinary proceedings. Employers must ensure that:

• Allegations are clearly articulated and communicated to the employee in advance.

• The disciplinary committee is impartial, with no conflicts of interest.

• Employees are afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense.

• The right to legal representation and cross-examination of witnesses is respected.

Failure to adhere to these principles not only exposes employers to legal liability but also erodes trust within the organization.

2. Consistency and Transparency in Performance Management

The contradiction between Ms. Nambi’s documented achievements and the grounds for her dismissal highlights the need for transparent and consistent performance management systems.

Employers should:

• Maintain clear, objective, and documented performance appraisals.

• Implement Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) before resorting to dismissal for poor performance.

• Ensure that rewards and disciplinary actions are based on objective criteria, not arbitrary or retaliatory motives.

3. The Role of the Rule of Law in Employment Relations

The rule of law demands that both employers and employees are held to clear, predictable standards. As demonstrated in this case, the law protects employees from arbitrary and capricious actions, while also providing mechanisms for employers to address genuine misconduct or performance issues—provided they do so lawfully.

4. The Importance of Legal Representation and Advice

Both parties in this dispute were represented by competent counsel, which ensured that the proceedings were conducted with a high degree of professionalism. Employees and employers alike should seek legal advice when navigating complex employment disputes, as the stakes—both financial and reputational—can be significant.

Conclusion: Towards a Fairer Workplace

The determination in Fridaus Nambi v. Knight Frank Uganda Ltd is a resounding affirmation of the rule of law in Uganda’s labour relations. It reinforces the principle that employees are entitled to fair treatment, and that employers must act within the bounds of both statutory law and natural justice.

For legal practitioners, HR professionals, and business leaders, this case serves as a timely reminder of the importance of:

• Adhering to due process in all employment matters.

• Ensuring transparency and consistency in performance management.

• Respecting the rights of employees to a fair hearing and impartial adjudication.

By internalizing these lessons, organizations can foster workplaces that are not only legally compliant but also just, equitable, and conducive to high performance.

Author’s Note:

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific employment matters, readers are encouraged to consult a qualified legal professional.

If you found this analysis insightful, please share your thoughts in the comments or reach out for further discussion on employment law and best practices in workplace governance. Connect with me for more legal insights and updates on Uganda’s evolving legal landscape.

Download the full case below

Download the article below