Court awards ex-Absa Bank worker sh14.2m over unfair dismissal
The court found that although the bank had proved that Muleme’s dismissal was substantively justified, the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair, rendering the dismissal unlawful.
Eddie Muleme was dismissed on July 23, 2018, and his appeal against the dismissal was rejected on August 28, 2018. (File photo)
________________
The Industrial Court has ruled that Absa Bank Uganda Ltd, formerly Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd, unfairly dismissed a staff member after denying him access to witness statements and restricting the role of his lawyer during a disciplinary hearing.
However, the court found that the bank had a valid and substantive reason to dismiss Eddy Muleme, an information technology (IT) specialist, after he removed electrical sockets from the bank’s former premises on Hannington Road without express authorisation.
The court consequently awarded Muleme sh14.2m for procedural unfairness and additional payment in lieu of notice.
Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana, sitting with panellists Adrine Namara, Susan Nabirye and Michael Matovu, delivered the award on July 21, 2026.
The court found that although the bank had proved that Muleme’s dismissal was substantively justified, the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair, rendering the dismissal unlawful.
Muleme had worked for the bank from July 2, 2007, and rose through various positions before being promoted to Data Centre and Networks Engineer in March 2018.
The dispute arose during the bank’s relocation from Plot 4 Hannington Road to Kampala Road in 2018.
The relocation involved moving departments, workstations and infrastructure, including network, fibre, cabling, power and electrical installations.
Muleme was accused of removing electrical sockets from the bank’s Hannington Road premises and taking them to the Kampala Road offices for reuse without authorisation.
He was suspended on June 20, 2018, and subsequently subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
He was dismissed on July 23, 2018, and his appeal against the dismissal was rejected on August 28, 2018.
At the time of his dismissal, Muleme earned a gross monthly salary of sh4,747,500 million.
Dissatisfied with the decision, he lodged a labour complaint before the Labour Officer at Kampala Capital City Authority, which was later referred to the Industrial Court.
Muleme, through his lawyer Godfrey Balondemu of Branmark Advocates, argued that his dismissal was unlawful and unfair.
He claimed that he had played a leading role in the relocation project and had helped the bank save more than sh44m by redesigning the cabling system, reusing equipment and supervising the installation of network and electrical infrastructure.
Muleme maintained that he had acted with the knowledge of the project lead, facilities officer and other senior staff and that the removal and reuse of the sockets was part of an approved cost-saving exercise.
He also argued that the bank’s asset movement procedures did not apply because the sockets did not have asset tags or serial numbers.
The bank argued that Muleme had been dismissed for removing electrical installations without authorisation and performing duties outside his designated role.
The bank further maintained that he had been accorded a fair hearing, including being notified of the allegations, participating in investigations, attending a disciplinary hearing with legal representation and appealing against the dismissal.
The court, however, found fault with the disciplinary process.
Justice Musana said the bank had denied Muleme and his lawyer access to witness statements before the disciplinary hearing, despite relying on the witnesses’ evidence to support the allegations against him.
The judge said although Muleme was allowed to question some witnesses during the hearing, the denial of their prior statements effectively “blindfolded” him and his lawyer, making effective cross-examination difficult.
The court also found that Muleme’s lawyer, Jude Byamukama, had been effectively restricted to observing the proceedings instead of actively representing his client.
The court held that Section 65 of the Employment Act gives an employee the right to be accompanied by a person of their choice during disciplinary proceedings and that the chosen representative’s role should not be improperly restricted.
“An employee is entitled to have any person of their choice, including a lawyer, whose representations the employer must consider before dismissing the employee,” the court held.
The court consequently found that the disciplinary process had been procedurally unfair.
Justice Musana found that the bank’s disciplinary policy clearly listed the removal of material without authority from the bank or its premises as an offence punishable by dismissal.
The court rejected Muleme’s argument that the bank had to separately prove dishonesty, holding that the disciplinary matrix expressly included the unauthorised removal of materials as a form of dishonesty or attempted dishonesty.
The court also found that Muleme had admitted during the disciplinary hearing that he removed between 15 and 25 sockets from the Hannington Road premises.
According to the court, Muleme admitted that he had not followed the formal approval chain or the established asset movement procedure before transferring the sockets.
The court further relied on evidence from bank officials who denied authorising the removal of the sockets.
The court heard that the project lead, Peter Paul Emaju, had not authorised the reuse of sockets from the Hannington Road premises and had instructed Muleme to concentrate on his IT and networking duties.
The court also considered evidence from Emmanuel Adubango, who denied giving Muleme permission to remove the sockets.
The court also relied on CCTV footage, which it said placed Muleme at the location where the sockets were removed.
Justice Musana said the evidence before the disciplinary committee showed that Muleme had admitted removing the sockets and that the forensic and investigative findings were consistent with the allegations against him.
The court therefore held that Absa Bank had established a genuine and well-founded reason for the dismissal on the balance of probabilities.
“The claim that the dismissal was substantively unfair is hereby rejected,” the court ruled.
Despite finding that the dismissal was substantively justified, the court held that procedural and substantive fairness are twin requirements, meaning that failure to meet one of them renders a dismissal unfair and unlawful.
The court therefore declared Muleme’s dismissal unfair and unlawful because of the procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
The court awarded Muleme four weeks’ pay amounting to sh4,747,500 million for the procedural unfairness.
He was also awarded an additional sh9,495,000million , representing two months’ salary in lieu of notice.
The court declined to award him severance pay, compensation, repatriation allowance, pension interest, general and aggravated damages.
The court also addressed Muleme’s outstanding loans with the bank.
Muleme had sought relief regarding a staff housing loan and another secured home loan.
The court found that the two loans had to be treated differently.
Justice Musana held that any outstanding portion of Muleme’s staff housing loan should be treated in accordance with the principles established in previous court decisions concerning salary based employee loans.
Regarding the secured home loan, the court held that the bank should not apply commercial interest rates following Muleme’s dismissal.
The court ordered that the applicable interest rate on the secured loan remain at the staff rate of 9% per annum.
The court noted that increasing the interest rate to commercial rates after the employee’s dismissal would compound the financial difficulties arising from the loss of employment.
The court also declared a temporary injunction application filed by Muleme, seeking to stop the bank from selling the mortgaged property, spent because the substantive labour dispute had now been determined.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.