Dr. Patrick Etwop has lost a case against Medical Teams International.
The matter was before the Industrial Court in Kampala before the Hon. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana.
Panellists were Hon. Adrine Namara, Hon. Susan Nabirye and Hon. Michael Matovu
Representation:
1. Mr. Geofrey Okullu Alok of Omara Atubo & Co. Advocates for the Claimant.
2. Mr. Paul Kaweesi of Libra Advocates for the Respondent
Background
Dr. Etwop had run to court challenging his sacking for abscondment from duty.
He was employed by Medical Teams, a non-governmental Christian global health organisation,
as a Medical Officer from 28th May 2018 until 25th January 2022 (effective 31st January
2022), following termination for an alleged unauthorised absence between 6th and 27th
December 2021. Dr. Etwop contends that he verbally notified his supervisor and
arranged coverage with a colleague to attend a relative’s burial. The Respondent maintains
the termination was lawful, asserting that the Claimant absconded without authorisation
and breached his contract.
In his memorandum of claim, the Etwop asserted that his daily attendance sheets would
disprove the allegations of abscondment. He asserted that the disciplinary committee
refused to review them before his summary dismissal. He further alleged that the
Respondent’s challenging working conditions caused him to develop Work-Exacerbated
Asthma with Allergic Rhinitis, incurring UGX 12,000,000/= (shillings twelve million) in medical treatment costs that the Respondent refused to cover. The Claimant sought
various reliefs, including compensation for unlawful and summary dismissal, a declaration
of unlawful termination, payment in lieu of notice, overtime allowance, payment for leave
not taken, severance allowance, general damages, punitive damages, payment for
unremitted NSSF benefits, special damages for his medical condition, interest at 35% per
annum, and costs of the suit. He also claimed UGX 5,000,000/= (shillings five million) for a
Centenary Bank loan and UGX 10,000,000/= (shillings ten million) for legal fees.
The Respondent maintained that the termination was justified and lawful. The Respondent
stated that a disciplinary hearing was conducted in accordance with proper procedure,
during which the Claimant was found to have violated his employment contract and core
values, resulting in a justified termination. The Respondent argued that the Claimant
admitted absconding in his appeal and that his claims of work-related asthma were
unfounded, asserting that it was hereditary and undisclosed during employment. The
Respondent affirmed that all NSSF and terminal dues, including payment for unused leave,
were duly paid to the Claimant following his termination.
Etwop denied absconding from duty and testified that he had arranged duty
coverage with a colleague and notified his supervisor when he had to attend a relative’s
burial. He maintained that attendance records proved his presence, but the disciplinary
committee ignored this evidence and wrongfully dismissed him. He also told us that he
was not paid salary in lieu of notice despite the Respondent’s assurance.
Under cross-examination, he told us that he informed a fellow doctor and his supervisor
by telephone about attending a relative’s burial and was absent from work between 18th
and 27th December 2021. He admitted that he did not fill in attendance sheets for 19th –
21st December 2021, did not complete a leave form, and had no written communication
regarding his absence. He maintained that he was overworked for two years without
adequate rest and had previously informed his supervisors of the workload.
He testified that hat he spent UGX 12,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Twelve Million) on medical treatment for asthma and allergic rhinitis and possessed receipts for the expenditure. He further stated that his leave requests were denied, that he was promised payment in lieu of notice following termination, and that he incurred legal expenses after the Respondent failed to pay him. He maintained that the disciplinary committee disregarded his oral evidence and that he had appealed for reinstatement.
In re-examination, he told us that whenever he was away from duty, he would arrange duty swaps with another doctor and inform his immediate supervisor, Dr. Edwin Ssemambo (Dr. Edwin), by phone, SMS, or email. He stated that copies of daily worksheets were issued to staff and that attendance sheets were submitted to Human Resources at the end of each month. The Claimant clarified that the Respondent failed to provide adequate protective gear and isolation facilities for COVID-19 patients. He also said he informed the Respondent when he developed asthma and personally met the cost of treatment despite the existence of medical insurance. He maintained that he had requested leave through email to Human Resources, although the relevant document was not before the Court. He confirmed that the only document served on him was the invitation to the disciplinary hearing, which he did not sign.
Nyadoi Sarah Precious, the Respondent’s Human Resources and Administration Manager, confirmed the Claimant’s employment history. She told us the Claimant’s duties required his physical presence at work and that any absence required prior written authorisation.
Based on the evidence before it, the DC established several critical findings regarding the Claimant’s unapproved absences and lack of transparency. It was found that the Claimant had enrolled in a three-year, full-time Master’s course at Mbarara University without notifying or seeking guidance from his supervisor or the HR office, and admitted to using working hours to attend these face-to-face classes.
It was also found that between 6th and 27th December 2021, he failed to sign any official leave forms. He offered no proof for a claimed localised coverage arrangement with a colleague for the period 6th to 10th December 2021 and completely failed to account for his whereabouts from 11th to 20th December 2021. Further, he provided no medical documentation to support his claim that he tested positive for COVID-19. It was found that his supervisor had to initiate contact on 20th December 2021 just to locate him, underscoring a severe communication gap regarding sick leave, compassionate leave, or peer coverage.
Consequently, the committee concluded that the Claimant was guilty of absconding from duty and had breached the medical team’s core value of accountability. The supervisor also noted that the Claimant neglected his specific responsibility to generate the facility’s duty roster. Due to these compounding infractions and the complete lack of formal communication or supporting evidence, the committee unanimously recommended terminating the Claimant’s employment contract, subject to a final decision by management.
Court found that the evidence before the DC and before this Court supports the Respondent’s
case. While the Claimant argued that he was either present or had arranged informal coverage, his own admissions and the strict administrative requirements of his role heavily weigh in favour of the employer’s decision. In our judgment, the finding of abscondment is supported by the evidence: First, the Claimant admitted non-compliance with official leave procedures. The most damaging evidence against the Claimant comes from his own testimony during cross-examination. He explicitly admitted that he had not completed an official leave form and had no written communication or email authorising his absence.
Etwop conceded that he did not sign the attendance sheets for December 19th– 21st, 2021.
Although he claimed in re-examination to have requested leave via email to Human Resources, he failed to produce this vital document before the Court.
The other difficulty is that the Claimant’s medical claims were not verifiable. The Claimant
alleged he was incapacitated after testing positive for COVID-19 on December 28, 2021,
and suffering from severe asthma.
In conclusion, the Judge observed that ‘’the Claimant’s dismissal satisfies both the procedural and substantive fairness tests under the Employment Act. Procedurally, the Respondent complied with Section 65EA and the Ebiju tests by issuing a detailed written notice (JEX10) providing eight clear days to prepare a defence. Substantively, the dismissal is legally justified under Section 68(3)EA. The Respondent discharged its statutory burden by proving verifiable misconduct to a reasonable degree; the Claimant’s unauthorised absences, failure to follow leave protocols, and unnotified enrollment in a full-time Master’s program during working hours constituted a repudiatory breach that went to the root of the contract. Therefore, issue one is answered in the negative. The Claimant was fairly and lawfully dismissed.’’
Etwop’s lawyer submitted that, having established unlawful and unfair termination, the
Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought. Counsel relied on Section 78 of the
Employment Act, 2006 and prayed for a compensatory award for unfair termination.
Counsel further sought general damages of UGX 250,000,000/= (shillings two hundred
fifty million) for the financial hardship, psychological anguish, and loss suffered by the
Claimant.
Mr. Kawesi. Medical Teams’ lawyer submitted that the Claimant was not entitled to any of the remedies sought.
Regarding payment in lieu of notice, Counsel argued that the Claimant had already received all terminal dues, including salary, payment in lieu of notice, and accrued leave, as evidenced by the payment records in the JTB.
Basing on these, the Judge said:
Having resolved Issue I in the negative and determined that the Claimant was fairly, lawfully, and justifiably dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds, in our judgment, the logical and legal consequence is that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the remedies claimed. Under the EA and industrial jurisprudence, compensatory awards, general damages, and aggravated damages are only consequential upon a finding of unlawful or unfair dismissal. Because the Respondent successfully discharged its statutory burden by proving a valid, verifiable reason for summary dismissal, there is no basis, in our view, for an award of damages or statutory compensation. Therefore, the ancillary claims for terminal dues must fail.
The evidentiary record also demonstrates that the Claimant was fully paid his standard terminal entitlements, including salary, payment in lieu of notice, and accumulated leave days, rendering any further claims under these heads redundant.
Accordingly, the Judge added that ‘’since the dismissal was procedurally fair and substantively justified, the Claimant is not entitled to any remedies, and the entire claim is hereby dismissed.’’
About The Author
