The Industrial Court has dismissed a claim by a former employee of Sign Care, Susan Anyait, who had sought more than Shs 68 million in salary arrears and other benefits, after she failed to prove that she earned the Shs 2.5 million monthly salary on which her claim was based.
Anyait said she joined Sign Care in 2005 and eventually rose to the position of marketing manager.
She told the court that by 2016, she was earning a net monthly salary of Shs 2.5 million. She claimed that beginning in 2014, the company repeatedly failed to pay her full salary, resulting in arrears totaling. Shs 68.29 million.
She further alleged that the company’s directors abandoned the business in September 2018 in an attempt to avoid loan obligations, leaving her to manage the company’s affairs.
According to her evidence, she eventually resigned in March 2019 because the company persistently refused to clear her outstanding dues.
Sign Care strongly denied the claims, saying Anyait had never been a manager and was instead employed as a Customer Care Assistant earning Shs 425,000 per month.
The company further claimed that Anyait absconded from duty during a restructuring exercise in 2019 and failed to properly hand over company property. It also maintained that all salaries and commissions due to her had been fully paid.
During the hearing, Anyait relied on company documents bearing her signature as a manager and insisted that she had been underpaid for years.
However, under cross-examination, she admitted that payroll records showing lower salaries had been prepared to reduce Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax and NSSF obligations.
Anyait argued that the payroll did not reflect her true earnings. She produced a letter authorising a salary remittance of Shs 3.75 million and told the court that some payments reflected in company records were management allowances paid in addition to her salary.
One of the company’s directors, Charles Olwa Leo, testified that Anyait was a Customer Care Assistant earning Shs 425,000 and denied that she had ever occupied a managerial position.
He accused her of diverting company clients to her own business and maintained that all salary obligations had been met.
During cross-examination, however, Olwa acknowledged that labour payment forms showed Anyait receiving amounts far higher than the Shs 425,000 reflected on the payroll. He also admitted that NSSF remittances had been inconsistent because of financial difficulties and that deductions were sometimes made without being remitted to the fund.
To explain the discrepancy, he said the additional money reflected in payment forms was not salary but commissions, advances, and motivational incentives.
The central question before the court became whether Anyait had proved that her actual salary was Shs 2.5 million per month and whether she was entitled to salary arrears based on that figure.
Nalule defaulted on a loan and Vision Fund sold her truck. She ran to court and lost
Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana ruled that she had not.
He noted that the documentary evidence consistently showed a monthly salary of Shs 425,000 and that Anyait had signed the payroll records month after month.
He rejected the argument that the payroll records were merely a sham designed to conceal the true salary.
“It is not realistically arguable that the claimant was entitled to a salary of Shs 2,500,000, but acknowledged receipt of Shs 425,000 per month by religiously signing the payroll every month from January 2015 until December 2018,” Justice Musana said.
This finding led directly to his conclusion that Anyait had approached the court with “unclean hands”.
In legal terms, the doctrine states that a person seeking help from a court of equity must not rely on wrongdoing to support their claim.
Because Anyait’s salary arrears claim failed, all the other remedies she sought also collapsed. These included claims for NSSF contributions, damages, repatriation allowance, and other payments, which had all been built on the allegation that she was owed salary arrears.
In the end, Sign Care emerged victorious as the court dismissed the entire claim and awarded Anyait nothing.
