NDA dragged to court for terminating lawyer's contract

A city lawyer has dragged National Drug Authority (NDA) and its director, Dr. Medard Bitekyerezo to High Court for illegally terminating his five-year-employment contract. 

In a suit filed before civil division of the High Court on Friday, Mark Kamanzi who is the NDA head of legal services accuses the respondents for unlawfully terminating his contract without following the due process of the law. 

According to Kamanzi, his contract was on June 6, 2017 unlawfully terminated without giving him an explanation. He dragged NDA and its director to court through Kalenge, Ssemambo and Company Advocates. 

"I have not handed over office and the defendants are forcing me to do so by directing me to complete the handover of requisite forms as well as the office tools and keys which is unfair," Kamanzi contends.    

He therefore seeks a temporary injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from any further attempts to effect the termination of his employment, pending determination of his case. 

A temporary injunction is a court order prohibiting an action by a party to a lawsuit until there has been a trial or other court action. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable damage or preserve the subject matter of the litigation until the trial is over. 

Civil court assistant registrar, Jolly Bahiguza is slated to hear the said application.   

Kamanzi, who started executing his duties on January 4, 2016, also wants an order maintaining his position with full payment and benefits, as per his contract, until his case has been determined.   

According to Kamanzi, if his application is not granted, he shall be forced to hand over office, thereby tempering with the prevailing status quo and rendering his application for temporary injunction and judicial review nugatory. 

"Unless this application is granted, my employment will be unlawfully terminated thereby affecting my career in a way that it cannot be atoned for my damages," he avers. Kamanzi says the balance of convenience is in his favour because he still holds his position.

However, Bitekyerezo explained that the human resource manual provides that any party to an employment contract may terminate it either by written notice or payment in lieu of notice. 

"Kamanzi's contract was terminated in writing and he was given one month's salary in lieu of notice and under HR manual there is no requirement on either party to the contract to disclose reasons for termination," he contends. 

According to Bitekyerezo, courts of law should not use their powers to force an employer to re-take an employee it no longer wishes to continue to engage so long as he is adequately compensated. 

"It is therefore my firm belief that there is no prima facie case that has been disclosed by the applicant to justify the granting of an interim order since any injuries he may incur will be atonable by monetary damages and compensation," he stated in his affidavit in support submitted to court. 

Bitekyerezo also said they do not wish the applicant to be in charge of their legal affairs and matters, hence terminating his contract. 

"If the court gives him an injunction, our legal affairs would be seriously prejudiced by having a lawyer we no longer wish to handle our affairs, a situation which cannot be countenanced in law as no client can have a lawyer imposed on him without his consent," he submitted.