| |
LAW,AG. V-P.
[1] The appellant, who was at the time a Saza Chief employed by the Buganda
Government, was wrongly dismissed on 16th July,1962.
[2] The respondent is the Attorney-General representing; the Uganda
Government, the successor of the now defunct Buganda Government.The
respondent has always admitted liability, and offered to pay the sum of Shs.
10,000 as damages for the wrongful dismissal.
[3] This offer was refused by the appellant. His case is that he was
dismissed at a time when he was 50 years old and was thus deprived of 5
years' salary he would have earned before reaching the normal retirement age
of 55.
[4] This represents a sum of about Shs.82, 000. There was in fact considered
doubt as to whether the appellant was 50 or 54 years old at the tine of his
dismissal, but the appeal was argued on the basis that he was 50.
[5] The respondent's case is that in assessing the appellant's entitlement,
regard must be had to a pension of £271 per annum, 2nd a gratuity of £900,
paid to him by the Buganda Government during the 5 year period when he was
wrongly deprived of employment.
[6] I agree that this must be taken into consideration. The sum involved is
Shs. 42,000. In addition, the appellant was under a duty to mitigate
damages. In pursuance of this duty, he sought and obtained employment in the
High Court at Shs. 500 a month for an unspecified period.
[7] This is another factor to be taken into account. The learned trial judge
considered that a further award of Shs. 10,000 would be sufficient to
compensate to the extent of shs. 52,000 in cash. In addition to which his
claim must be mitigated having regard to the unspecified amount of his
earnings during the material 5 year period.
[8] Considering all these circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant
has been adequately compensated for his wrongful dismissal, and I cannot
agree with the submission made by Mr. Sebalu on his behalf that the award of
shs.10,000 appealed against was either based on wrong principles or so
manifestly inadequate as to require interference by this Court. I would
dismiss this appeal, with costs.
[9] As the other members of the Court agree, it is so ordered.
LUTTA, JA
[10] I agree.
MUSTAFA, JA
[11] I agree that the appeal must be dismissed. |
|
