The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a bid by a senior oil sector executive to challenge his dismissal from TotalEnergies EP Uganda through judicial review, ruling that the dispute belongs in the ordinary labour justice system and not in the public law arena.
In a decision delivered in Miscellaneous Cause No. HCT-00-CV-MC-0054-2026, Justice Bernard Namanya held that the application filed by Mr. Amos Mwase, former Deputy Director of Health, Safety, Security and Environment (HSSE) at TotalEnergies EP Uganda, failed to meet the threshold for judicial review and had been brought prematurely.
Mwase was dismissed from the company on 22 December 2025 following internal disciplinary proceedings over allegations of sexual harassment and improper handling of a subordinate’s confidential medical information. Dissatisfied with the outcome, he turned to the High Court on 20 February 2026, seeking to overturn the dismissal.
Through judicial review proceedings brought under the Judicature Act and the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, Mwase asked the court for an order of certiorari to quash the company’s decision dismissing him, an order of mandamus compelling his reinstatement as Deputy Director HSSE, a declaration that his dismissal was illegal, irrational and procedurally improper, and an award of general damages.
In his supporting affidavit, Mwase said he had worked for TotalEnergies for 13 years and risen to Deputy Director HSSE in 2023, with an “exemplary” service record and no previous complaints against his performance or character. The dispute, he said, stemmed from a contentious performance appraisal meeting on 20 October 2025 involving Process Safety Engineer Ms. Jean Gift Kisakye, HSSE Director Mr. Jean Milcent and Risk Manager Ms. Miaora Stroe.
Mwase alleged that disagreements over Kisakye’s performance gaps created animosity and that as the meeting ended abruptly, tensions carried over. He further claimed that he later met Kisakye in the office corridors, where she allegedly warned him, “I will get all of you for this.”
While he was on part of his annual leave, further appraisal meetings on Kisakye’s performance took place on 30 October and 4 November 2025. On 12 November 2025, shortly after his return to duty, Mwase received an ethics alert notice from the company’s Ethics Alerts Investigation Committee, informing him that an alert had been filed by a member of his team and requiring him to provide information in response.
According to Mwase, he was summoned to a meeting on 18 November 2025 attended by senior management, including the Head of Legal, the Human Resource Director, the Finance Director and the Compliance Officer. There, he was informed that Kisakye had lodged two complaints: sexual harassment contrary to the company’s code of conduct and policies, and disclosure of her confidential medical records and harassment in relation to the alleged taking of her phone by his Director in his presence.
By a letter dated 28 November 2025, Human Resource Director Ms. Christine Sekyana informed Mwase that the sexual harassment complaint had in fact been filed in June 2025, a development he said had never been communicated to him. He was invited to a disciplinary hearing set for 9 December 2025, submitted a written response on 2 December, and later received a document titled “Communication 1” containing alleged WhatsApp messages between himself and Kisakye.
Mwase appeared before the disciplinary committee on 9 December 2025. The committee, he said, was chaired by Lamin Sabally, and included representatives for Human Resources and Ethics, as well as an external lawyer from S&L Advocates for the company. He argued that convening the hearing about six months after the complaint was allegedly lodged breached the company’s disciplinary code, which required serious misconduct capable of termination to be reported within five days.
He further claimed that the chairperson indicated the committee already had sufficient evidence to establish his guilt and would hear from him “before convicting him,” a remark Mwase said demonstrated bias and predetermination. He presented call logs obtained from MTN Uganda to show that communication with Kisakye was two-way and did not support harassment, but claimed the committee disregarded this evidence.
Following the hearing, Mwase was suspended and later informed by the HSSE Director on 16 December 2025 that the company intended to terminate his employment even before the disciplinary committee had formally communicated its decision. On 22 December 2025, he received a dismissal notice and was asked to begin the departure process. He also complained that the decision was communicated thirteen days after the hearing, contrary to the five-day period prescribed in the disciplinary code.
He appealed the dismissal on 24 December 2025, alleging that the process had violated the principles of a fair hearing and was tainted by illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The company acknowledged the appeal on 5 January 2026 and promised to constitute an appeals committee. When he was later invited to an appeal hearing set for 11 February 2026, Mwase declined to attend, saying in a 9 February 2026 letter that the appeal was intended only to sanitise a process he considered illegal, irrational and procedurally improper.
In response, TotalEnergies, through an affidavit by Human Resource Director Christine Sekyana, denied the allegations, insisting the application was meritless, brought in bad faith, and constituted an abuse of court process. The company argued that the dispute was essentially about alleged unfair dismissal from private employment and therefore belonged before a Labour Officer or the Industrial Court under the Employment Act, not in judicial review proceedings.
The company stated that its Ethics Officer had, on 31 October 2025, received a complaint from Kisakye alleging that Mwase had sexually harassed her between June 2024 and June 2025 despite repeated objections. Kisakye had reported the matter to Human Resources in June 2025 but had initially declined to escalate it. After the ethics alert was lodged, she was asked to provide supporting material, including call logs, Microsoft Teams extracts and WhatsApp messages.
TotalEnergies said Mwase was invited to an in camera ethics alert assessment session on 18 November 2025, where he was informed of the complaint and heard in response. The Ethics Alert Assessment Committee conducted only a preliminary admissibility review before referring the matter to the Integrity Committee, which validated a recommendation for a formal disciplinary hearing. Mwase was formally invited to the hearing on 28 November 2025, submitted written responses on 2 and 8 December, and appeared on 9 December 2025 with two advocates.
The company rejected claims of bias or predetermination, saying the chairperson simply explained that a complaint supported by evidence had been received and that the hearing aimed to obtain Mwase’s response. It said Mwase read out his written defence, made oral submissions, confirmed that he had presented all the evidence he wished to rely on, and declined to provide call logs to the committee, handing them instead to his lawyers. After reviewing the evidence, the committee found his explanation insufficient and dismissed him with notice under the company’s zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment.
On the appeal, the company said the dismissal letter informed Mwase of his right to challenge the decision, which he exercised on 24 December 2025. The respondent acknowledged the appeal, cited delays caused by the holiday season, and invited him to an appeal hearing on 11 February 2026 before an independent appeals committee. When Mwase refused to attend, the company maintained that he had voluntarily abandoned an internal remedy specifically designed to address any alleged unfairness.
In rejoinder, Mwase insisted his application was truthful, accurate and brought in good faith. He denied that the matter was a purely private law dispute, arguing that the disciplinary committee had exercised quasi-judicial functions amenable to judicial review. He reiterated that his dismissal had been predetermined, that the appeal process was intended merely “to sanitise” an unlawful decision, and that he had not been furnished with a detailed written complaint, signed minutes, investigation reports or other material necessary for his defence.
At the hearing on 25 March 2026, Mwase was represented by Mr. Frank Nigel Othembi of Othembi & Co. Advocates, while TotalEnergies was represented by Mr. Martin Jjuko, Mr. James Zeere and Mr. Ferdinand Musimenta of S&L Advocates. Both sides filed written submissions, with the company raising several preliminary objections.
Counsel for TotalEnergies argued that Mwase had not exhausted the company’s internal appeal process since he declined to attend the scheduled appeal hearing, and had also failed to exhaust statutory remedies before the Labour Officer and Industrial Court. They further contended that the decision under challenge was taken by a private company in a private employment relationship and did not involve the exercise of any public law function.
Mwase’s lawyer countered that he was not required to pursue an appeal arising from a process he considered void ab initio and that any internal appeal would have been futile. He argued that the case focused on the legality, fairness and propriety of a quasi-judicial disciplinary process, not a mere contractual dispute, and was therefore within the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. He also said the three-month limitation period for judicial review justified moving directly to court.
In his ruling, Justice Namanya sided with the company on the preliminary objections. The judge found that Mwase had invoked the court’s judicial review jurisdiction before exhausting the internal appeal procedure, having lodged an appeal but refused to attend its hearing. He also held that Mwase had bypassed the statutory dispute-resolution framework under the Employment Act and the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, which required him to first take his complaint to a Labour Officer and, if necessary, to the Industrial Court.
Crucially, the judge rejected the claim that the dismissal decision was subject to judicial review, noting that the applicant “placed no evidence before Court to show that, in dismissing him, the respondent was exercising a public function, governmental power, or authority with public law consequences.” Instead, he found that “the impugned decision arose from a private employment relationship governed by contract and the applicable labour law framework,” and therefore “the respondent’s decision is not amenable to judicial review.”
“From the foregoing analysis, the preliminary objections are well founded and are upheld,” Justice Namanya concluded. He held that the application failed the threshold requirements for judicial review under rule 7A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules and, having upheld the preliminary objections, found it unnecessary to examine the merits of Mwase’s complaints about bias and procedural impropriety.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Mwase’s application for judicial review in its entirety and awarded costs to TotalEnergies EP Uganda, leaving the former executive to pursue any further remedies through the ordinary labour dispute mechanisms rather than the public law route he had chosen.
About The Author
