Court dismisses ex-UEGCL accountant’s sh936m claim
The claimant had sought sh936 million in compensation for loss of income, in addition to general, aggravated and punitive damages, four weeks’ salary amounting to sh8.248 million, a compensatory award of sh8.248 million, interest at 24% per annum and costs.
Court dismisses ex-UEGCL accountant’s sh936m claim
___________________
The Industrial Court has dismissed a labour dispute filed by a former Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited (UEGCL) Project Accountant, Samuel William Bamusonighe, after finding that the company lawfully declined to renew his fixed-term employment contract.
In a judgement delivered by the court's lead Judge, Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha, on July 2, and delivered on July 3, 2026, the court declared that the expiry and non-renewal of Bamusonighe’s contract did not amount to unlawful termination.
The claimant had sought sh936 million in compensation for loss of income, in addition to general, aggravated and punitive damages, four weeks’ salary amounting to sh8.248 million, a compensatory award of sh8.248 million, interest at 24% per annum and costs.
Bamusonighe, who joined UEGCL as a Senior Accountant in November 2009 before becoming a Project Accountant under a three-year renewable contract signed in May 2014, argued that the company unfairly refused to renew his contract when it expired in May 2017.
He claimed the decision was retaliation for allegedly exposing fraud and abuse of office through whistleblowing in November 2016. Bamusonighe further alleged that he was sent on forced leave, denied access to his office email and accounting systems before his contract expired and that his position was advertised while he was still employed.
The company also rejected claims of victimisation, insisting that the advertised positions were different from the claimant’s role following a restructuring exercise.
In its decision, the court held that under the Employment Act, the expiry of a fixed-term contract does not amount to unfair termination and that an employer is under no legal obligation to renew such a contract unless the contract expressly provides otherwise.
The judges noted that Bamusonighe’s employment contract expressly gave UEGCL the sole discretion to renew or decline renewal based on, among other factors, satisfactory performance.
The court further found that although Bamusonighe argued that he had a legitimate expectation that his contract would be renewed because he had been included in management discussions on contract renewals and appeared on the annual leave schedule, those circumstances did not amount to a clear and binding promise by the employer.
“The respondent had discretion to renew or not to renew the contract and was free to change its mind. The initial management discussions were never communicated to the claimant as a promise of renewal,” the court held.
Although the court faulted UEGCL for relying on a new performance threshold introduced after the claimant’s appraisal period, it held that this did not change the legal position because the company was not obliged to provide reasons for declining to renew a fixed-term contract.
On the whistleblower claim, the court found that there was insufficient evidence proving that Bamusonighe was the author of the alleged whistleblower report.
The judges also held that by later identifying himself as the source of the disclosure in court proceedings, Bamusonighe fell outside the statutory protection available under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, which requires the identity of a whistleblower to remain confidential.
The court concluded that Bamusonighe failed to prove that UEGCL had unlawfully terminated his employment or breached any legal duty owed to him.
“As such, the respondent had no legal obligation to give him reasons for declining renewal or subject him to disciplinary proceedings,” the judges ruled.
The claim was dismissed in its entirety, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.