The Industrial Court has ordered the Petroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU) to pay a former manager Shs 280 million in general damages after it unlawfully dismissed him in July 2020.
Wilson Turinawe Twebaze, the manager for Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation at PAU, was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) before he was dismissed in a manner that the court deemed unfair and contrary to the law.
PAU hired Twebaze on January 15, 2018, on a five-year contract as a manager in Monitoring and Evaluation. His job title was later changed to manager, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. His appointment carried a six-month probation.
Twebaze completed six months of service in mid-July 2018. He was appraised in November 2018 and given a “Good” rating. However, in December, the PAU’s board decided to place him on PIP, an indication that he had not performed satisfactorily.
But the decision was only communicated to Twebaze on March 22, 2019, months after the PIP had started.
Angry, Twebaze refused to sign some appraisal forms, alleged tampering with records, and complained that management attributed his work to another officer. He sought mediation. A Finance and Human Resource Committee of the board heard the matter in July 2020 and recommended termination. The board adopted that recommendation, and Twebaze’s contract was terminated on July 10, 2020.
He went to court.
‘You were just a volunteer’, court dismisses Yusuf Baliruno’s case against CBS
In court, a panel of four people led by Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime-Mugisha carefully reviewed the evidence and reached several clear findings.
First, the court held that PAU extended or reopened probation without Twebaze’s consent and that this was contrary to Section 66 of the Employment Act and to the Authority’s own Human Resource Manual.
Second, the court found the PIP process itself was flawed. It explained that a PIP is a corrective tool and should be documented, have measurable targets, be agreed with the employee and include regular feedback.
However, PAU failed to show that these steps were followed. The court recorded that management did not “document performance issues” or agree on measurable targets with the claimant.
Third, the court emphasised procedural fairness. Section 65 of the Employment Act requires that an employee be given reasons, access to reports that implicate them, and an opportunity to be heard and to be represented. The court found that Twebaze was denied essential documents and a fair hearing.
The court used blunt language to describe PAU’s conduct. It observed that the PIP had become a “blunt weapon” against the claimant. The court concluded that the dismissal was “unlawful, unfair, wrongful” and void from the start.
The court awarded Twebaze a package of remedies. These include payment in lieu of notice, severance pay, general damages and interest. All these amounted to Shs 280 million at an interest rate of 18% per year.
Twebaze’s predicament resonates with many employees in Uganda. They are kept on probation, shuffled through administrative processes, and then dismissed without clear evidence or a fair chance to defend themselves.
Employers reading this ruling ought to know that they must follow the law and their internal own policies when managing performance of their staff.
