WorldCourts: International Case Law Database   International Case Law Database
50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions


3 December 1971


Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1971


Court of Appeal for East Africa


Emmanuel Kayemba



The Attorney General






JUDGES OF APPEAL: Lutta and Mustafa





Kayemba v. Attorney General, Judgment, File No. 43 of 1971 (CAEA, Dec. 03, 1971)

Represented By:


Editor's Note:

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Jeffreys Jones, J.) dated 3rd July, 1971 in Civil case No. 159 of 1965



[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.


[10] I agree.


[11] I agree that the appeal must be dismissed.








Follow on X | Database Scope | Terms & Conditions | About

Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.