The Industrial Court has dismissed a claim of wrongful and unfair termination filed by former Victoria University lecturer Mathias Bbaale, ruling that his engagement ended lawfully by effluxion of time and that he worked as a part-time, not full-time, employee.
The decision was delivered on July 9, 2026, by Hon. Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha, Head Judge, sitting with panelists Hon. Rose Gidongo, Hon. Beatrice Achiro Okeny, and Hon. Charles Wacha Angulo. Bbaale had dragged Victoria University to court, alleging wrongful and unfair termination, breach of employment contract, unpaid salary arrears, failure to issue a certificate of service, and claiming general and aggravated damages as well as costs. He reported the dispute to Kampala Capital City Authority Labour Officer Emmanuel Mukiza Rubasha, who, after a failed mediation on September 8, 2016, referred the matter to the Industrial Court on November 10, 2016, having failed to conclude it within the statutory time.
The Claimant, represented by Mr. John Mike Musisi of M/s. JM Musisi Advocates & Legal Consultants, insisted he had been appointed as a full-time lecturer under a two-year contract. According to his claim, on October 6, 2014, he received an appointment letter from Victoria University as a lecturer on a two-year contract starting January 19, 2015, with a consolidated monthly salary of Ugx. 3,200,000. He alleged that on March 2, 2016, he was verbally informed that he was no longer on the staff list for that semester. He further stated that on March 9, 2016, he met the Vice Chancellor to raise his grievance, during which his appointment letter was confiscated on grounds that it was a forgery. Subsequently, on May 2, 2016, he was arrested and detained for three days at Central Police Station, Kampala, on allegations of forgery. In his memorandum of claim filed on December 9, 2016, Bbaale contended that his employment had been unlawfully terminated and that his salary had not been paid regularly.
By March 2016, he claimed, his salary arrears had accumulated to Ugx. 50,000,000. He sought a declaration of unlawful termination, payment of alleged salary arrears, damages for breach of contract, aggravated and general damages, a certificate of service, and costs. Victoria University, represented by Mr. Allan Mbonye and Mr. Shafik Muteesasira of M/s. Mugisa, Nantale & Co., Advocates, denied the allegations.
The Respondent maintained that Bbaale was engaged as a part-time lecturer on an hourly rate of Ugx. 45,000 and that his engagement ended by effluxion of time at the close of the semester. The university asserted that the purported full-time appointment letter dated October 6, 2014, was a forgery discovered only after his part-time contract was not renewed. The Respondent asked court to dismiss the claim with costs, arguing that no full-time employer–employee relationship existed between the university and the Claimant as alleged. During cross-examination, Bbaale confirmed that he was employed by Victoria University and stated that he had responded to a newspaper advertisement, was interviewed, and subsequently appointed as a lecturer on October 6, 2014, commencing work on January 19, 2015. He maintained that his contract was to expire on January 19, 2017. However, the Respondent’s key witness, Dr. David Byatike Matovu, Chairman of the Victoria University Council, told court a different story. In his witness statement adopted as Evidence in Chief on April 22, 2024, Dr. Matovu explained that, as Council Chairman, his duties involved general oversight of the university’s human resources and chairing council meetings.
He testified that the appointment letter relied on by the Claimant was a forgery, pointing to several discrepancies. The letter stated a two-year duration, yet, according to him, the Claimant was only ever engaged on one-year, semester-based terms, typical for part-time staff who are paid via honoraria rather than monthly salaries.
He also noted that the letter was signed by the University Secretary, instead of the Director and Vice Chancellor, who ordinarily signed full-time academic contracts at the time. In its analysis, the court questioned the Claimant’s conduct and credibility regarding his alleged full-time status.
“We found it peculiar that he continued to receive payment as a part-time lecturer without making any complaints about it, yet he claimed to be a full-time lecturer,” the court observed. The judges stressed that “no evidence was placed on the record to indicate that he took any steps to demand his rights as a full-time lecturer and to demand the payment of the alleged Ugx. 3,200,000 salary per month.” They added: “It is unbelievable that he agreed to be paid as a part-time lecturer for work done as a full-time lecturer, moreover, for the entire period of the purported contract.” The court further noted that it was equally implausible for such a serious issue to be handled so informally. “It is also unbelievable that he could treat this issue so casually by complaining to the Vice Chancellor verbally, as he stated under paragraph 10 of his evidence in chief, and by continuing to receive honoraria without coercion,” the ruling reads.
According to the judgment, the evidence on record showed that the Claimant only received honoraria, which “cannot be categorized as salary,” and payment for part-time lecturers, which he admitted signing for. Apart from his assertion that the appointment letter was confiscated, he provided no other evidence to show that the work he rendered was that of a full-time lecturer. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Claimant, who alleged that the university had advertised for a full-time lecturer position in the New Vision newspaper, to which he applied, was interviewed, and appointed.
“Given that it was the Claimant is the one who alleged that the University advertised for the position of full Lecturer in New Vision Newspaper, which he responded to by applying for the position, was interviewed and appointed for it, the onus of proving the existence of such an advert, the application he purportedly made and the appointment letter, lay on him and unfortunately, he had not discharged this burden,” the court held.
In conclusion, the court found that, in the absence of evidence that the Claimant served on a full-time basis, and considering how his remuneration was calculated and paid, he had in fact worked as a part-time employee for one year. The judges said they had “no doubt in our minds that the Claimant worked as a part-time employee.”
On the question of termination, the court held that the expiry of the semester contract amounted to no-fault termination and that the forgery investigation was separate from the employment relationship.
“Given that the expiry of the Semester contract is a no-fault termination, the investigation regarding the forgery of the Claimant’s appointment had nothing to do with it, and in our considered opinion, it was sufficient for the Respondent to hand over the matter to the police to investigate it as a criminal matter regarding forgery. Having done so, they cannot be faulted for not renewing the expired semester contract,” the court stated. Having established that the Claimant worked on a part-time basis, “based on hours worked and the period he served, even in the absence of a written contract,” the court concluded that informing him that he was not listed for teaching in the next semester “cannot be construed as termination of employment, given that the contract had already terminated at the end of the previous Semester.” “Accordingly, we find that the termination of his contract by effluxion of time was both procedurally and substantively lawful within the meaning of Section 64 (1) (b) of the Employment Act. This issue is therefore decided in the negative,” the Judge held. The court then addressed each of the Claimant’s prayers. On his plea for a declaration that his services were unfairly terminated, the court reiterated its finding that termination by effluxion of time was lawful and denied the prayer.
On the claim for Ugx. 50,000,000 in salary arrears from January 2015 to March 2016, the court held that the Claimant had failed to prove that he served as a full-time lecturer to justify salary arrears. Having established that he was a part-time lecturer who was fully paid for services rendered, “this claim cannot hold. It is denied.”
Bbaale also claimed Ugx. 38,400,000, calculated at a monthly salary of Ugx. 3,200,000 for one year up to 2017 for the alleged remainder of his term. The court noted that the Claimant had retracted the assertion that his term was two years by later producing a one-year contract and found the document tainted by illegalities, rendering it unenforceable. “We also established that he served as a part-time lecturer based on a fixed-term contract per semester, and after the expiry of the contract, it was not renewed, and non-renewal did not amount to unlawful termination. In the circumstances, the claim for future earnings had no basis given that the contract had expired by effluxion of time and task,” the court held. On the request for a certificate of service, the court referred to Section 60(1) of the Employment Act, which requires an employer to issue a certificate on termination where requested. “We have no reason to deny this prayer even if the Claimant did not show that he sought it and it was denied. This prayer is therefore granted.” However, having found that termination was lawful, the court denied the claim for aggravated and general damages.
On the issue of costs, Justice Mugisha reaffirmed the court’s long-standing approach in labour disputes. “This court has taken the position that costs do not follow the result in Labour disputes. This is because of the need to balance the power of workers/employees who have lost a source of income with the employer, who is in a more powerful position, being the holder of capital. Thus, enabling such workers/employees to access justice, because subjecting a person who has already lost the means of survival to costs would be to render them completely destitute. Costs are therefore only awarded in exceptional circumstances where there is pre-litigation misconduct on the part of the parties or where they bring frivolous cases. However, for equality, the same principle applies to an employer as well. We found no basis for an award of costs in this matter,” Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha said in the ruling delivered on July 9, 2026.
About The Author
