Court rejects ex-PMB worker’s move to sue Auditor General, Official Receiver
Justice Musana ruled that the Auditor General’s constitutional mandate is limited to auditing and verification and does not create an employment relationship with the former PMB workers.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday (June 30), Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana, sitting with panellists Adrine Namara, Susan Nabirye and Michael Matovu, held that neither the Auditor General nor the Official Receiver was a necessary or proper party to the proceedings.
KAMPALA - The Industrial Court has dismissed an application by 81 former Produce Marketing Board (PMB) employees seeking to join the Auditor General and the Official Receiver to their case over alleged unpaid terminal benefits, ruling that the workers have no legal cause of action against the two institutions.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday (June 30), Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana, sitting with panellists Adrine Namara, Susan Nabirye and Michael Matovu, held that neither the Auditor General nor the Official Receiver was a necessary or proper party to the proceedings.
The former employees, whose services were terminated between 1990 and 1993 during a retrenchment exercise, contend that they were never paid their full terminal and retirement benefits.
They filed Labour Dispute Reference No. 15 of 2017 against the Attorney General, seeking compensation.
However, the court found that the applicants had failed to establish a legal cause of action against either institution.
Justice Musana ruled that the Auditor General’s constitutional mandate is limited to auditing and verification and does not create an employment relationship with the former PMB workers.
“The Applicants seek to join the 2nd Respondent not because of a direct breach of the employment contract, but to challenge the operational completeness of the auditing exercises,” the judge observed.
The court further held that joining the Auditor General solely to obtain evidence would amount to a “fishing expedition,” noting that existing legal procedures allow parties to summon witnesses or request relevant documents without making them parties to the suit.
Regarding the Official Receiver, the court noted that the liquidation of PMB was completed in December 2003 and that responsibility for compensating redundant employees under the Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Act rests with the Minister responsible for Finance, who is represented in court by the Attorney General.
The court also emphasised that officials from relevant government institutions can still be summoned as witnesses if their evidence becomes necessary during the hearing of the main case.
In dismissing the application, the court cautioned against introducing procedural applications that unnecessarily delay the resolution of long-standing disputes, describing such tactics as “Stalingrad type sideshows.”
Despite dismissing the application, the court declined to award costs against the former workers, noting that they are ageing employees pursuing claims for terminal benefits.
“Ageing retrenched workers seeking terminal benefits need not be condemned in costs,” the court ruled, directing each party to bear its own costs.
The court ordered that the substantive case be called on July 6, 2026, for trial directions.