TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

Section 21defines termination of employment as:

“the discharge of an employee from an employment at the initiative of the employer for
justifiable reason other than misconduct, such as expiry of contract, attainment of
retirement age, etc…”

The same section says that “termination” has the meaning given by section 65
which states the instances under which termination is deemed:

"(a) Where the contract is ended by the Employer with notice.

(b) Where a contract of service, being a contract for fixed term or task, ends
with the expiry of the specific term of the completion of the specified task and is not
renewed within a period of one week from the date of expiry on the same terms or
terms not less favourable to the employee.
(c) Where the contract of service is ended by the employee with or without notice, as a
consequence of unreasonable conduct on the part of the employer, but before the
expiry of the notice.
(d) Where the contract of service is ended by the employee, in circumstances where the
employee has received notice of termination of the contract of service from the
employer but before the expiry of the notice”.

As distinct from “termination of employment”, section 2

defines “dismissal from Employment" as
“the discharge of an employee from employment at the initiative of his or her employer when the said
employee has committed verifiable misconduct

The contract of employment has to be terminated in accordance with the law and the contract
of employment. In the absence of express proceedings on termination, it has to be in
accordance with the law. Common law presumes that they must be expressed reasonably.
Termination can be with or without notice. It can be with or without a hearing. In some cases,
termination can even be summary.

The supreme court of Uganda has held in Barclays Bank of Uganda Vs Godfrey Mubiru

;Kanyeihamba JSC,

“where a service contract is governed by a written agreement between the employer and
the employee, as in this case, termination of employment or service to be rendered will
depend both on the terms of the agreement and on the law applicable”.
In Dennis Rogers Buwembo v Hutchins Cancer Research Institute in Uganda the court
elaborated on the circumstances that may lead to an employee or employer legally
terminating the contractual relationship between the two by stating that
Generally speaking the contract will always provide for the exit of either of the
parties out of the contract. For as long as the exit clauses in the contract do not
conflict with the provisions of the Employment Act or any other law, the said clauses
if complied with, will form the legal termination of the contract. Broadly speaking, an employer has an
inherent right to dismiss an employee.

And courts, as held by OKELLO, J in Kayondo v The Co-operative Bank

cannot order an employer to employ an employee when he or she does not wish to. Court cannot
declare that a contract between an employee and an employer still exists in circumstances where the
employer wants it terminated. Such an order cannot be specifically enforced. Therefore, an employer
can terminate the contract of an employee at any time. Initially, an employer was not even required to
give reasons to the employee for dismissal.

In STANBIC BANK LTD v KIYIMBA MUTALE

supreme court held that there is freedom of contract and courts cannot enforce specific performance of
a normal contract of service. The employee, however, expects to be protected from unfair and
unwarranted breaches of the contract of employment by the employer. When an employee is
wrongfully terminated, the court should use its powers under article 126 (2) (c) to award adequate
compensation.

“The position of the law is that an employer may terminate the employee’s
employment for a reason or for no reason at all. However, the employer must do
so according to the terms of the contract. Otherwise he would suffer the
consequences arising from failure to follow the right procedure of termination. A
termination is effective even when wrongful because courts cannot force an
employer to keep an employee forever. The employer would have to contend
with a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal

In the absence of express proceedings on termination, it has to be in accordance with the law.
Common law presumes that they must be expressed reasonably.
Termination can be with or without notice. It can be with or without a hearing. In some cases,
termination can even be summary.
In Mary Pamela Sozi v The Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets,
court held that an employer cannot unreasonably and without justification terminate the contract of the
employee just because there is a clause in the employment contract that allows for payment in lieu of
notice. As such, common law has laid down different modes under which termination of a contract of
employment ought to be done.

On the other hand in dismissing an employee, the employer must establish that there is
verifiable misconduct on the part of the employee. It is our view that verifiable misconduct
includes but is not limited to abuse of office, negligence, insubordination, and all those
circumstances that impute fault on the part of the employee which include incompetent

PROCEDURE FOR DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE

It's important to be very careful when you decide to terminate an employment contract. This is to
ensure that you comply with the ethical or legal rules in the process. Below is a list of steps for how to
properly dismiss an employee:

1. Issue a warning

Before you decide to dismiss somebody, it's a good idea to keep track of any problems they may have
caused. Provide warnings when issues occur and give the employee a chance to correct their behaviour.
Make sure you compile any documentation or proof that shows how they've breached their contract or
given you cause to consider dismissing them.

When you issue a warning, do so in writing and keep a copy. You may choose to issue several warnings
before finally deciding that the only course of action is dismissal. In this case, keep track of all relevant
documentation.

2. Ensure that you've followed proper procedure

Refer to your company's disciplinary procedures and policy to ensure you follow proper procedures.
Companies may have their own warning systems and a certain number of chances an employee has to
correct their behaviour or work. Take your time at this stage to ensure accuracy. An employee dismissal
is a very serious matter, and it's crucial to follow the correct procedure for your company and area.

3. Make sure that you have a valid reason for dismissal

It's vital that you make sure that the reasons for dismissal are legally valid and substantial. The
government sets out specific guidelines related to an employee's rights regarding dismissal. Valid
dismissal requires that the employee in question is not doing their job properly or is risking others'
safety.

4. Confirm that there's no discrimination

Before proceeding with dismissal, it's also important to ensure that your reasons are unrelated to the
employee's identity. If they're being dismissed for reasons that relate to a protected characteristic, such
as their sexual orientation, religion, age or gender, then they may be able to take legal action under the
Equality Act 2010. Consider reviewing the guidelines to ensure you're following the correct protocol.

5. Arrange a disciplinary meeting

If you have a valid reason for dismissal, you can invite the employee to a disciplinary meeting. In writing,
inform them that their dismissal is a potential result of this meeting and that they have the right to be
accompanied by a representative.

During the meeting, present the employee with the evidence you've accumulated and inform them of
how they've violated their terms of employment or otherwise given you cause to dismiss them. Allow
them to comment on any evidence or allegations against them. Ensure that somebody is present to take
notes of this meeting and act as a witness.

Hold the meeting in a private room where others can't overhear what's happening. Ensure that you're
dealing with them professionally and politely and that you keep your personal thoughts and emotions to
yourself.

Listen to their defence of their actions and consider what they have to say, and then have a break to
deliberate. Consider the employee's defence fairly when making your decision. Afterwards, if you still
want to dismiss them, explain why you're making the decision.

6. Reconvene to deliver the decision

When you reconvene the meeting, you can formally deliver the outcome. Take the time to repeat the
reasons for dismissal, and you can also present this in writing. If you feel that further investigation is
necessary, you can communicate this when you reconvene.

If your company needs to conduct an investigation, revisit the reasons for dismissal, the evidence
thereof and consider whether the decision is fair. Once the investigation concludes, gather and present
the findings in a new disciplinary meeting and proceed from there.

7. Remind the employee they can appeal the decision

The employee whose contract is being terminated has the right to appeal your decision to dismiss the
process. This is an essential part of a fair dismissal procedure. Remind the employee that they have this
right, and provide them with a deadline by which they may make such an appeal.

Once you've done this, follow up the meeting with a summary in writing. You can take this opportunity
to confirm that the company has decided to terminate the employee's contract and explain why the
team made this decision.
This is also where you can inform the employee of their remaining rights, such as their outstanding pay,
the need to return any company property and any remaining annual leave. Doing so in writing allows
you to prove that you've followed the correct procedure and have treated the employee fairly.

8. Review how it went

Consider reviewing your process to help you learn and improve it for the future. You can learn a lot by
revisiting the procedure and how you handled it. Think about how you could've done things better, and
try to incorporate this into your approach the next time there is a potential dismissal to consider.

You may also wish to take the time to reassure other employees that their jobs are not at risk and that
the dismissed individual had given you cause to terminate their employment. This can help you maintain
a positive workplace environment.

EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATION UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

The employer’s obligations upon the termination of an employment relationship include:

a. Payment of wages/salary An employer has a legal obligation to pay wages/salary to their employee in
accordance with the employment contract between the two parties. Upon termination, an employee is
entitled to be paid any salary/wages which due to him/her at the time of termination.

c. Payment in lieu of notice Payment in lieu of notice would be in accordance with the periods already
described above or according to each individual’s contract of employment where the notice periods in
the contract exceed those in the law. Where there are no specific provisions in the contracts or those
provisions provide for less periods than what is in the law, the payments would be as follows:

a) No notice pay for staff who have worked for less than six months.

b) Two weeks pay for an employee who has worked for more than six months but less than one year.

c) One month pay where an employee has worked between one year and five yearsd) Two months’ pay
where an employee has worked between 5 years and 10 yearse) Three months’ pay where an employee
has worked for 10 years or more.

d. Payment for outstanding leave days

An employee is entitled to annual leave every year. Where there are outstanding leave days which have
not been taken by the employee at the time of termination, they are calculated into money and paid,
unless the employee forfeited them. An employee forfeits the leave when they are asked to take leave
or an opportunity offered for the employee to take leave but the employee chooses to continue
working. This requirement is applicable where an employee has worked for more than six months.

e. Holiday payWhere an employee has worked on public holidays, they are entitled to payment at the
rate twice that of usual pay for the public holidays worked. This requirement is applicable where an
employee has worked for more than six months.

f. GratuityThis is a payment in appreciation of an employee’s service to an employer. The Staff

Handbook/Human Resources Manual usually stipulates the conditions for entitlement to gratuity, if any.
Where it is provided for in the Manual, it must be paid. If it is not provided for, there is no obligation to
pay.

g. Severance pay or severance allowance is a sum paid by an employer to an employee who has been in
continuous service in circumstances where the employee’s employment contract is involuntarily
terminated. Under the Act, to claim severance pay, an employee must have worked continuously for a
period of six months or more. The Act further lists the circumstances which may give rise to severance
pay including; unfair dismissal of the employee, insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer, death or
incapacity of the employee, an order of termination of the contract by the labour officer due to inability
to pay wages by the employer. Employees who are justifiably dismissed are not entitled to severance
pay. The law does not prescribe the sum payable but leaves it for negotiation between the employer
and employee or the Labour Unions.

MODES OF TERMINATION:

1. By consensus.

This can be reached at any time during the course of employment.

Birch and Humper v The University of Liverpool

Here, the University introduced a retirement scheme under which any retirement could only take place
with mutual agreement of both employer and employee. Absence of such mutual agreement entitled
the employees to claim for redundancy payments. The appellants applied for early retirement and it was
granted. They then sued arguing that their employment had been terminated by the employer alone
and so were entitled to redundancy payments. Court of Appeal held that an employee cannot be said to
be dismissed by the employer if the contract of employment has been terminated by consensus or
mutual agreement of both the employer and employee jointly.

Nuwemugizi v National Water & Sewerage Corporation

 In this case, the plaintiff wasasked to voluntarily retire after attaining mandatory retirement age. He
accepted to do so without any verbal or written protest, and even took all his emoluments, retirement
benefits and payment of 3 months in lieu of notice. He later sued arguing that his employment had been
unlawfully terminated. Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff had voluntarily retired
which in effect was termination by consensus.
It is important to note that termination by mutual consent (meaning that there was no
dismissal for statutory purposes) is in general treated warily by tribunals and courts because
it is capable of completely undercutting employee rights since the employee will be deemed
to have voluntarily left employment. However, this mode of termination still does exist

2. By way of dismissal,

S. 2 defines dismissal as “the discharge of an employee from employment at the initiative

of his or her employer when the said employee has committed verifiable misconduct

As interpreted in Florence Mufumba Vs U.D.B that in dismissing an employee, the

employer must establish that there is verifiable misconduct on the part of the employee. It is
our view that verifiable misconduct includes but is not limited to abuse of office, negligence,
insubordination, and all those circumstances that impute fault on the part of the employee
which include incompetence. Dismissal must be in accordance with the law and the contract of
employment.

In Barclays Bank of Uganda Vs Godfrey Mubiru

, the Supreme Court pronounced itself on dismissals, where it is stated that where a contract is
governed by written agreement between
the employer and employee, termination of employment services to be rendered will depend
both on the terms of the agreement and on the law applicable

Dismissal requires notice, however where there is no notice, it is referred to as summary

dismissal. This is referred to in Section. 65(1)(c)13 which states that an employment may be
terminated where the contract of service is ended by the employee with or without notice, as
a consequence of unreasonable conduct on the part of the employer towards the employee;

Summary dismissal.

This is provided for under S. 69 and 70 of the Employment Act

Ssection.69 (1)14 Summary termination shall take place when an employer terminates the
service of an employee without notice or with less notice than that to which the employee is
entitled by any statutory provision or contractual term. And an employer is entitled to dismiss
summarily, and the dismissal shall be termed justified, where the employee has, by his or her
conduct indicated that he or she has fundamentally broken his or her obligations arising
under the contract of service.

The case of Bank of Uganda Vs Betty Tinkamanyire, and S. 69 of the Employment Act

are to the effect that an employer is entitled to dismiss summarily, and the dismissal
shall be termed justified, where the employee has, by his or her conduct indicated that he or
she has fundamentally broken his or her obligations arising under the contract of service.

Barclays Bank v Godfrey Mubiru

[Justice Kanyeihamba]. In this case, the respondent had been employed by the appellant from 1969 until
1990 when he was summarily dismissed after several warning against him for breach of duty, negligence
and gross incompetence. He was in the habit of lending more money to borrowers in excess of his
powers, to the detriment of the bank. He sued for wrongful dismissal and High Court found in his favor.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Kanyeihamba held that when an employee is in breach of a
fundamental term of his employment or guilty of sufficient misconduct, he or she may bebdismissed
summarily without notice, and, before the expiration of a fixed period of employment. He went ahead
to say that summary dismissal is without notice and dismissal without notice also implies dismissal
without a right to be heard first.

The conduct of the employee here is viewed as sufficiently serious to justify immediate
termination of employment without notice. In this respect, if you are dismissed with disgrace,
you may not be entitled to pension. Ordinarily, summary dismissal may not suffice if the
employee has made a mistake once. However, one act of disobedience or misconduct can
justify dismissal only if it is of such a nature which goes to show in effect that the employee
is repudiating the contract or one of its essential terms.

John Eletu v Uganda Airlines .

The plaintiff was summarily dismissed due to gross negligence. He brought this action on the premise
that his summary dismissal was unlawful. In distinguishing summary dismissal from termination,
Manyindo, J held that under the former, the employer gives no notice whereas in the latter, he must
give notice or pay in lieu of such notice. The principle behind payment in lieu of notice being that an
employer is normally under no obligation to provide work for his employer even if the employer is
entitled to notice. The judge further gave examples of conduct that would repudiate a contract or
amount to a substantial breach i.e. disobedience of lawful orders, misconduct, drunkenness, immorality,
assaulting fellow workers, incompetence and neglect. Such conduct would warrant a summary dismissal.
Constructive dismissal

This arises out of the implied term that an employer should not conduct himself in a manner
calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust between him or
her and the employee. If this relationship is damaged, this can lead to constructive dismissal,
irrespective of the fact that the employer had no intention of repudiating the contract as held in

Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd

In this case, the employer asked the employee to accept a pay cut and also work longer hours. She was
told that failure to comply would lead to a dismissal. She resigned and sued the employer arguing that
her resignation amounted to constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal may involve;

a) Progressive withdrawal of benefits from an employee’s office

b) Hostility by the employer
c) Reduction in pay
d) A series of minor incidents of harassment over a period of time which cumulatively
amount to repudiation (Woods case, supra). This is what courts have progressively
referred to as the ‘last straw’ doctrine.
e) Failure to respond to an employee’s complaint about lack of adequate safety
equipment
f) Undermining the authority of senior staff in front of subordinates
g) Failing to protect an employee from harassment from fellow employees
h) Imposing a disciplinary penalty that is out of proportion to the offence
i) The conduct seen above amounts to constructive dismissal and can warrant a
resignation from the employee.

Under constructive dismissal, it suffices to say that the employee can terminate the contract
without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct such as hostility, etc. The employee may
treat words by an employer to constitute dismissal. In the same vein, the employer may
construe the resignation of the employee from the employee’s resultant conduct, either
expressly or impliedly, even where the conduct is confusing or words used by the employee
are ambiguous.

In Sovereign House Security Services Ltd v Savage

a security officer wastold that he was to be suspended pending police investigations into theft of
company money.Savage told his employer that he was ‘jacking it in.’ The Court of Appeal agreed that
the employer was entitled to treat these words as amounting to a resignation.
Where words are unambiguous, court will always find that there is a resignation and not a
dismissal. However, courts have to give an allowance for words used by the employee in the
heat of the moment in response to the employer’s hostility or conduct. In the same vein, an
employer’s hostile utterances in the heat of the moment cannot be said to amount to
constructive dismissal.
In Tanner v Kean
where the employee continued to use the company vehicle for personal business yet the employer had
loaned him some money to buy his own private car, the employer in annoyance uttered words like “you
are a tight bastard. I lent you money to buy a car but you are too tight (mean) to put juice (fuel) in it. You
are finished with me.” Court held that these were words said in the heat of the moment and should not
have been treated by the employee to amount to a constructive dismissal.

Reason for dismissal;

Despite the employer having the right of dismissal, it must not be exercised arbitrarily
without any reason whether dismissal is by notice or not.

In OKELLO NYMLORD V RIFT VALLEY RAILWAYS2 it was held That the right of
the employer to terminate the contract of service whether by giving notice or incurring
the penalty of paying compensation in lieu of notice for the duration stipulated or
implied by the contract cannot be fettered by the courts. But that this does not mean that
an employer can unreasonably terminate an employee’s contract because there is a provision
of payment in lieu of notice as was in the case under common law.

This is because under Section . 68 (1) of the Employment Act 2006, it is provided that:-
“in any claim arising out of termination, the employer shall prove the reason or reasons
for the dismissal and where an employer fails to do so, the dismissal shall be deemed to
have been unfair within the meaning of S. 71
The requirement for reasonable grounds has been reiterated on several occasions by the
Industrial Court.

In the case of FLORENCE MUFUMBA VS UGANDA DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION expounded on sections 2 and 68(1)25 as it held:

“In our considered opinion whether the employer chooses to “terminate” or

“dismiss” an employee, such employee is entitled to reasons for the dismissal or
termination. In employing the employee, we strongly believe that the employer
had reason to so employ him/her. In the same way, in terminating or dismissing
the employee there ought to be reason for the decision.”
Fair hearing;

An employer must comply with the principles of natural justice while dismissing an
employee.

In Ridge Vs Baldwin & Others27

, one of the leading authorities on termination of employment relationships, it was held that even if the
respondents had power of dismissal without complying with the regulations, they were bound to
observe the principles of natural
justice. It was held in that case that a decision reached in violation of the principles of natural
justice, especially the one relating to the right to be heard, is void and unlawful.

In Jabi Vs Mbale Municipal Council it was held that it is a fundamental requirement of

natural justice that a person properly employed was entitled to a fair hearing before being
dismissed on charges involving a breach of a disciplinary regulations or misconduct. The
court further held that it was perhaps a different case if the employee was on temporary
terms, but an employee on permanent terms is entitled to know the charges against him and
to be given an opportunity to give any grounds on which he relied to exculpate himself.
Where that was not done, it could properly be said that the dismissal was wrongful.

The right to a hearing is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda under
article 28 and Article 42

3. By repudiation.

It’s the outright breach of a fundamental term in the contract. This breach even extends to
implied terms in the contract. However, where an employer introduces new rules at his
premises for a legitimate purpose and which rules apply to all employees, the fact that the
new rules affect one employee as opposed to the rest of the employees, will not amount to
repudiation of the contract under an implied term of the employer providing a conducive
working environment for the employee.

In Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board, the applicant smoked 30 cigarettes a day and
her job was such that she could not leave the premises during the day in order to partake of a
cigarette. The employer had set aside smoking place, which he later withdrew. Dryden
resigned, claiming constructive dismissal, and arguing that the employer had repudiated the
contract. Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds explained above.

4.By frustration.
Here, blame for termination of the contract cannot be apportioned to either the employer or the
employee. In Morgan v Manser [1948]a music hall artiste was called up for service in the army and his
contract of employment was accordingly held to be frustrated. It was held that
If there is an event, or change of circumstances, which is so fundamental as to be regarded by
the law as striking at the root of a contract as a whole and beyond what was contemplated by
the parties, and such that to hold the parties to the contract would be to bind them to
something to which they would not have agreed had they contemplated that event or those
circumstances, the contract is frustrated by the event immediately and irrespective of the
volition or the intention or the knowledge of the parties as to that particular event, and even
though the parties have continued for a time to treat the contract as still subsisting. In those events, the
court will grant relief and pronounce that the contract has been frustrated, either
by implying a term to that effect, or otherwise. The belief, knowledge and intention of the
parties is evidence, but evidence only, on which the court can form its own view whether the

changed circumstances were so fundamental as to strike at the root of the contract and not to
have been contemplated by the parties

5. Economic dismissal.

Economic dismissal arises out of the idea that it is unreasonable for an employer to keep you
employed if they can no longer financially sustain you. The employer reserves the right to
restructure depending on the available resources. Economic dismissal consists of realigning
or changing employment structure, reduction of offices, staff, etc., to make the company
more sustainable.

6. By way of notice.

The general principle at common law is that either party to a contract can bring it to an end
by giving notice to the other. Once notice is given, it cannot be withdrawn unilaterally. It
must be with knowledge and consent of the other party to whom it was directed. If a contract
is for a fixed period of time, the position of the law is that the employment cannot be lawfully
terminated before the end of that period unless the employee is in breach of contract or the
contract itself provides for prior termination by notice. The length of notice to bring a
contract to an end should be agreed to by both parties. If no notice is expressly agreed then
the law requires that ‘reasonable notice’ should be given, with the length depending on
factors such as the seniority and status of the employee.

In Jabi vs Mbale Municipal Council it was held that it is generally accepted that a
dismissal is wrongful if it is made without justifiable cause and without reasonable notice.
The notice required might be determined from th e contract of service itself or custom or any
written regulations governing the employment of which the plaintiff was a party.
7. Termination by death or insolvency

Section 29 of the Employment Act provides that where the employer’s personal or legal
position formed the basis of the employment relationship with the employee, the death of an
employer shall cause the contract of service to terminate one month from the employer’s
death, unless it is otherwise legally terminated within the period.
Section 30 of the above act is to the effect that the bankruptcy or winding up of the
employer’s business shall cause the contract of service of any of the employee to terminate
one month from the date of the bankruptcy of winding up order. As in HAS MWESIGWA&

TUMWESIGYE V UGANDA CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES LTD50 SCCA 7 OF

2002,the employer company was closed pursuant to the government policy of Reform and
Divestiture . consequently the letter from the directors terminating the appellants
employment in the respondent company was a mere formality as the company had already
been closed by the government. In the result the appellants employment was abnormally
terminated by the government which closed the respondent company. The appellants were
entitled to a severance allowance.

8. Termination by expiry of contract

Under s.65 (1) (b) of the Employment Act 2006, termination shall be deemed to
take place where the conduct of service, by being a contract for a fixed term or task, ends
with the expiry of the specified term or the completion of the specified task and is not
renewed within the a period of 1 week from the date of expiry on the same terms not less
favorable to the employee

9. Termination by the labour officer

This arises where the employer fails to pay wages or is otherwise in breach of the
employment contract and the employee complains to the labor officer, the contract can be
declared as terminated by the labor officer on application by the employee that the employer
has failed to pay wages under section 31(1) of the Employment Act

10. Termination on attaining retirement age

The law doesn’t deem it necessary for the employer employer to inform the employee that the
latter is about to lose his job because attaining the retirement age.
Section 12 of the pension Act53 provides that an officer shall retire on attaining the age sixty
years., the education service commission, require an officer to retire from the service of the
government at any time after the officer attains the age of fifty-five years.

Hon. Gerald Kafureeka Karuhanga V Attorney general54 court concluded that under the
1995 Uganda constitution , a chief justice who has vacated office by way reason of having
attained the mandatory age of retirement which is seventy as per article 144 is not eligible for
re appointment as the chief justice of the Republic of Uganda and therefore the re appointment of
Hon .justice Benjamin Odoki after termination of his contract of service by attaining the
mandatory age of retirement was inconsistent with the uganda constitution of 1995.

REMNEDIES FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION:

Once the dismissal of an employee has been found to unlawful by court, the next question
then becomes what remedies accrue thereto. Sections 66, 67, 69, and 70 of the Employment
Act introduce a mechanism for complaint in case of unfair termination.

DAMAGES

Generally, damages are the most likely remedies that court will grant. On the issue of
damages, the point was made in Ahmed Ibrahim Bohlm v Car & General Ltd55where it was
held that it is now recognized that courts in East Africa can award punitive and or exemplary
damages in torts and contracts, employment contracts inclusive (emphasis added).
The remedy for an employee who considers his/her tenure to have been prematurely
terminated is provided under Section 71 of the Employment Act 2006.