GULU UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW
GROUP COURSE WORK
COURSE UNIT: LABOUR LAW
YEAR OF STUDY: TWO
SEMESTER: TWO
GROUP MEMBERS:
NAME STUDENT NUMBER REGISTRATION NUMBER
Brief facts:

On the 6th October, blessed was appointed as a customer care supervisor at Gulu commercial Bank,
she signed contract translated in English thereby accepting to work for 10 hours a day with a break
of 20 minutes. On 10th November, she had cramps and she sent a whatsapp message to Makapi
requesting for a sick leave and also informed him that she would take off two weeks as part of her
30 days annual leave. Makapi didn’t check his WhatsApp, She was replaced with Don.

Legal issues:

1. Whether there was a valid contract of employment.

Laws applicable:

1. The constitution of the republic of Uganda 1995, as amended.

Resolutions:

Legal issue 1: whether there was a valid contract of employment.

The contracts Act1 defines a contract as an agreement made with the free consent by the parties
with contractual capacity for a lawful consideration and with lawful object with the intention of
being lawfully bound.

The notion of freedom of contract emphasizes that parties to a contract are free to formulate terms
that they want and deem favourable. The employment act stipulates that contract may be entered
into either by writing or orally. 2 In the case of Barclays Bank of Uganda V Godfrey Mubiru,3 the
court recognised the fact that a contract is governed by a written agreement between the employee
and the employer and such terms provided therein shall be given essence.

However, it is noteworthy that the requirements of a valid contract should be invoked thus inter alia
include: consideration , offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, free consent. Therefore the court
shall base on such requirements to determine whether the contract was valid or invalid.

It is clear from the scenario that Blessed signed an employment contract that was in Acholi with an
English translation. It is of essence that the court consider whether the Acholi version of the
agreement had similar terms with that of the English translation that Blessed signed. If the two
versions are containing different terms, then the contract may not be void but avoidable at wish of
the plaintiff due to the fact that it defeats the notion of free consent as provided under the
Contracts Act 2010.4

In this matter, the court may also consider whether the terms of the contract were lawful as
required by the Contracts Act. The courts of law are not in favour of enforcement of illegal contracts

1
Section 10 (1) of the Contracts Act 2010.
2
Section 25 of the Employment Act 2006.
3
Barclays Bank of Uganda V Godfrey Mubiru, Supreme Court Case Appeal No.1 of 1998.
4
Section 13.
that is to say contracts that contradict with the laws of the state. In this scenario, the working hours
and break maybe subjected to a test to find out whether they were reasonable and lawful.

The Employment Act sets the maximum numbers of working hour in a week at 48 hours and
requires that an employee at least rests for an hour after every 5 consecutive hours of work. 5
However, this would defeat the notion of freedom of contract that facilitates various individual
interests as long as they are lawful.

In order to promote the principle of freedom of contract, it is provided under the Employment Act
that an employer and an employee may agree that the working hours shall not exceed 10 hours per
day or fifty six hours per week. 6 Basing on the brief facts herein, Blessed had given free consent to
working for 10 hours a day thus not in position of challenging the validity of the contract.

Basing on the above discussion, the contract entered that Blessed entered into with Gulu
Commercial Bank is legally binding and thus it is deemed a valid contract since it satisfies all the
required elements of a valid contract of employment.

Whether blessed breached the terms of contract.

Breach refers to a situation where an employee fails to perform his/her express or implied
contractual obligations without a legitimate or substantial legal excuse. Breach of an employment
contract by the employee inter Alia include failure to carry out duties as stipulated in the contract,
acting dishonestly or any form of misconduct which justifies summary dismissal for gross misconduct
such as cooperating with a rival entity which breaches the employees duty of fidelity, negligence.
Etcetera .

The deviation from performing the contractual obligations by the employee entitles the employer
the employer to take any lawful action that may seem to be expedient. This is justified on the
ground that an employee has a corresponding obligation to provide his/her services personally
subject to the terms and conditions that the employer and employee expressly agreed upon.Wilson
nuwemuguzi v NWSC SCCA No.26/1993 the supreme court held tht it is not necessary that the
master dismissing a servant for good cause , should state the grounds for such dismissal provided
the grounds exist in fact

The magnitude of breach determines the appropriate action that the employer can resort to or
invoke in order to prevent the unnecessary inconveniences that are caused by the breach thus
where there is a fundamental breach of terms that are connected to the roots of the contract, the
employer can summarily dismiss the employ as provided for under section 69(3) of the employment
act.

Thus basing on the instant facts, Blessed breached the terms of the contract as she did not follow
the formalities in seeking the leave due to sickness. Section 55(2)a of the employment act provides
that the employee shall notify or cause to be notified as soon as is reasonably practicable, his or her
employer of his or her absence and the reason for it and produce if requested by his or her and at
intervals of not less than one week, a written certificate signed by a qualified medical practitioner. It
is a fact that blessed never followed the established procedures that must be observed in seeking
the leave. Thus in Shell Ltd Vs George Ndyabawe court held that an employer may dismiss the

5
Section 53 (1) of the Employment Act 2006.
6
Section 53 (4) of the Employment Act 2006.
employee summarily if by his or her conduct the employee repudiates the terms of contract of
employment or is in fundamental breach of the contract.

It is noteworthy that blessed was also not entitled to an annual leave, this is based on the fact that
an employee can only apply for an annual leave only when he/she has worked for a period of six
months. Section 54(5) is to the effect that an employee shall only be entitled to an annual leave after
having performed continuous service for their employer for a minimum period of six months.

Whether termination of the contract was valid.

Employees unable to discharge their duties by reason of sickness are entitled to full retaition for the
first month of sickness. An employer can terminate the employment relation at the end of the
second month for persisting sickness. However, staff welfare is of paramount importance to some
organizations that usually provide for longer periods of sick leave in the contracts issued to their
employees.

An employee may terminate an employment relationship with or without notice if he or she is

In the case of Muyimbwa Paul versus. Ndejje University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 222 of 2015),
the Industrial Court ruled that the demotion of an employee without giving them an opportunity to
be heard was unreasonable conduct. Similarly, in Nyakabwa Abwooli versus Security 2000 Limited
(Labour Claim No. 108 of 2014), the Industrial Court ruled that the removal of instruments of an
office without providing an alternative was unreasonable conduct.

The Industrial Court further explained that employer conduct is unreasonable if it is a serious breach,
is illegal and injurious to the employee making it impossible for the employee to continue working.

According to s. 54 of the employment act 2006, an employer is once in every year untitled to leave
and holidays during the period of employment. Where such leave is not taken, an employees is
entitled to receive upon the termination of employment, payment proportionate to the length of
service he or she has did not receive holiday or leave or compensation for such

nevertheless, this terminal benefit is subject to a condition that the employees must have, during
the period of his employment, applied for the leave in an annual employmen period and the request
was denied by the employer.

This was the same position in the case of Etuket vs kampala pharmaceutical industries (1995) ltd L/D
no 272/ 2014 where court stated, there is no doubt that under s. 54 of the employment act 2006,
employees are entitled to a no of days off as their annual leave. However employees employees are
required to request for such leave days only when they are denied to go on leave when they are
denied to go on leave after expressing interest to exercise this right. In the absence of expression of
interest to take leave by the claimant, we decline to grant this prayer.