Wanyera vs. Kabira Sugar ltd, 1985 (in the High Court of
Uganda at Jinja), HCT-C.S.-0058-1997].
Save for the words “at any time even for no cause”, we find the
above authority attractive enough and compelling to apply it
mutatis mutandis to this prayer.
With due respect to Counsel for the Claimant, we do not see any
basis on which this prayer is premised and Learned Counsel did
not adduce any evidence thereof.
Furthermore, as long as
Counsel for the Claimant did not underscore on which grounds
general damages would be evaluated, these damages appear as
putative damages in as far as they are claimed but unapproved.
Consequently, prayer (D) is disallowed.
Regarding prayer (E), it is obvious that the Claimant has been
working for the Community until 30th April, 2012. Again, Counsel
for the Claimant did not substantiate the basis of this prayer; he
only asserted that aggravated damages are within the discretion
of the Court as they are “merely instructive and not
obligatory.”
On our part, we are of the opinion that the conduct of the
Respondent’s Executive Officers has been minimized by different
short employment contracts accorded to the Claimant.
Prayer (E) is therefore, disallowed.
On prayer (F), costs shall follow the event in any proceedings as
provided under Rule 111(1). Taking into account the merits of
CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012
Page 33