Court awards former UEDCL worker sh13m over unfair dismissal
The court awarded sh1,078,311.66 in severance allowance and sh12m in general damages, together with costs of the suit and interest of 6% per annum on the two awards from the date the claim was filed until payment in full.
Court awards former UEDCL worker sh13m over unfair dismissal
___________________
The Industrial Court has awarded a former Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (UEDCL) employee over sh13m after finding that his dismissal was procedurally unfair and substantively unlawful.
The court awarded sh1,078,311.66 in severance allowance and sh12m in general damages, together with costs of the suit and interest of 6% per annum on the two awards from the date the claim was filed until payment in full.
The decision was delivered on September 9, 2026, by Industrial Court head judge Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha, sitting with panellists John Abraham Bwire, Julian Nyachwo and Juma Mwamula.
The case arose from a dispute between John Fredrick Mubiru, a former meter reader, and UEDCL in Labour Dispute Claim No. 61 of 2015.
Court documents indicate that Mubiru had sued the company, challenging his dismissal and seeking declarations that it was unlawful, together with special and general damages, exemplary damages, repatriation expenses and costs.
According to court records, Mubiru joined the Uganda Electricity Board (UEB) as a meter reader in 1990. His services were transferred to UEDCL in 2001 following restructuring of the electricity sector.
His appointment was confirmed in August 2001 at a monthly salary of sh359,437.22.
According to the court documents, Mubiru was summoned before a disciplinary committee in August 2003 over allegations relating to cancelled electricity bills. He told court that he was not given the cancelled bills, photographs of the meters or other evidence relied upon against him.
Mubiru further complained that although the disciplinary hearing took place on October 3, 2003, he was not dismissed until January 2005.
He said the allegations contained in his termination letter differed from those he had been summoned to answer. The termination letter cited under-reading customers’ meters, neglect of duty, abuse of office and causing financial loss to the company.
UEDCL denied the allegations and maintained that Mubiru had been accorded a fair hearing after an audit investigation established that he had under-read meters.
The company also argued that union representatives had left the disciplinary hearing voluntarily and that Mubiru had been given sufficient material to prepare his defence.
However, the court found that UEDCL had failed to establish that Mubiru was given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations for which he was ultimately dismissed.
The court noted that Mubiru had initially been summoned to explain variances arising from readings following the cancellation of electricity bills, but was ultimately dismissed for neglect of duty and causing financial loss through under-reading meters.
The court held that an employee should be informed of the allegations against them before a disciplinary hearing and should not be dismissed for reasons that were not previously communicated.
The court noted that eight members sat on the disciplinary committee, including two members of the Internal Audit Department who had investigated Mubiru. However, the court said Mubiru had not sufficiently proved that the number of committee members, on its own, prejudiced him.
The court also found that UEDCL did not call any witness to support its case or provide evidence substantiating the new allegations contained in the termination letter.
It further faulted the company for taking one year and five months to conclude the disciplinary process after the October 2003 hearing.
The court said Mubiru was entitled to a fair and speedy hearing and found that the delay violated his labour rights.
On remedies, the court rejected Mubiru’s claim for sh150m in general damages but awarded him sh12m.
It also awarded him sh1,078,311.66 in severance allowance, calculated at one month’s salary for each of the three years and five months he served UEDCL.
The court rejected his claims for exemplary damages and repatriation expenses, saying he had not provided sufficient evidence to support them.
UEDCL was also ordered to pay half of the costs of the suit, with interest of 6% per annum on the severance allowance and general damages from the date the claim was filed until payment in full.
The court ruled that Mubiru had proved that his dismissal was both procedurally unfair and substantively unlawful.