Sylvester Niyibaho, a former storekeeper at Picfare, will have to be paid Shs 9.9 million after the court ruled that hw was unfairly dismissed from the job over the disappearance of cartons of pens in his care.
Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime-Mugisha said Niyibaho’s dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unlawful and ordered Picfare to compensate him.
Niyibaho, who had worked as a stores assistant since August 23, 2013, was linked to the disappearance of products belonging to one of Picfare’s clients.
According to the court, cartons of pens disappeared from the company’s store in September 2017. Following the theft, Niyibaho was arrested on September 21, 2017, and detained by police for three days.
After he was released on police bond, he returned to work on September 25, only to be told that his employment contract would be terminated.
Two days later, he received his termination letter together with his September salary and one month’s salary instead of notice.
Niyibaho first challenged his dismissal at the KCCA Labour Office, and when mediation failed, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court.
He told the court that after serving Picfare with a summons from the Labour Office, he was arrested again in February 2018 and remanded to Luzira Prison on charges of conspiracy to commit theft.
However, the criminal case was eventually dismissed on August 31, 2018, because it was not prosecuted.
Niyibaho maintained that he never received any warning letters and insisted that another employee kept the store keys while he mainly handled documents and paperwork.
He also told the court that he did not understand the payments he received when he collected his termination letter.
Picfare, however, said 14 cartons of pens worth Shs 5.25 million had been stolen from its premises and argued that Niyibaho was dismissed because of negligence, poor performance, insubordination, and failure to safeguard company property.
It also claimed he had repeatedly ignored verbal and written warnings and that he had been allowed to explain himself before his employment was terminated.
It further argued that because he accepted Shs 780,500 as his terminal benefits, he had accepted a full and final settlement of the matter.
Erina Kawalya from the Platform for Labour Action (PLA), a workers’ centred civil society organisation, who represented Niyibaho, argued that the dismissal was unlawful because Picfare never carried out a proper internal investigation or disciplinary hearing before firing her client.
She cited previous court decisions which state that before an employee is summarily dismissed, the employer must prove the misconduct after following a disciplinary process similar to a judicial hearing.
She further submitted that Picfare had failed to prove valid reasons for dismissing Niyibaho as required by law.
On the other hand, Picfare’s lawyer, Charity Itungo of Enoth Mugabi Advocates and Solicitors, argued that the dismissal was lawful because Niyibaho had ignored repeated warnings, performed poorly, and was negligent in carrying out his duties.
She also argued that Picfare had internal disciplinary rules which governed the employment relationship and that Niyibaho had failed to use the company’s internal appeal process after his dismissal.
According to her, his acceptance of terminal benefits settled all claims arising from his employment.
Justice Tumusiime-Mugisha first carefully examined Niyibaho’s termination letter and said that from the wording, it is clear that the reason for termination was fault-based; therefore, it cannot be categorized as a termination within the meaning of section 64 of the Employment Act.
She said that once Picfare accused Niyibaho of negligence, it had a legal duty to notify him of the allegations and hear his side of the story before making a decision.
She quoted the Employment Act, which requires an employer to explain the reasons for dismissal to an employee and hear any representations before deciding to dismiss them.
Justice Tumusiime-Mugisha noted that Picfare’s own witness admitted under cross-examination that no disciplinary hearing had been conducted.
“There was no evidence to indicate that [Picfare] had conducted a disciplinary hearing to ascertain that [Niyibaho] had breached his terms of employment,” she said.
She also questioned the company’s reliance on an old warning letter issued a year ago and ruled that even if the theft had occurred, Picfare still had a legal obligation to hear Niyibaho before dismissing him.
“[Picfare] had the responsibility of not only proving the allegations for the dismissal, but also giving [Niyibaho] an opportunity to defend himself, which it did not,” she said.
In the end, Justice Tumusiime-Mugisha concluded that Niyibaho’s dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unlawful.
She said the arrest and dismissal caused him mental anguish and deserved compensation, and awarded Niyibaho Shs 7.5 million in general damages and Shs 2.4 million as severance allowance.
Picfare was also ordered to pay the costs of the case.
