Labour and Employment Law

Madrama v Attorney General (CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2016.) [2019] UGSC 1 (14 February 2019);


Search Summary: 

This appeal raises questions about the
employment rights of public officers within the
law and the Constitution. The background is
that the appellant applied and was taken in as a
judicial officer. He retired and was never given
his retirement benefits hence this petition
which succeeded in part hence the appeal on
the grounds of discrimination,
unconstitutionality of the retirement laws and
labor laws.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court held that when a public
officer resigns, he in turn forfeits any benefits
that he/she would have been entitled to under
the Pensions Act. Resignation is not envisaged,
whether under the Constitution, the Pensions
Act or indeed under the law of employment, to
entitle the employee to terminal benefits
beyond those stated in the employment
contract. That terminal benefits are based in
law and depend on the existing law and nature
of the employment contract. Terminal benefits
are computed after termination in accordance
with the terms of service or a given contract.
Unless the terms of the contract so provide, an
employee who voluntarily resigns his or her
employment is not entitled to terminal benefits

because as already stated, resignation
constitutes severance of all the entitlements
under such employment.


Subscribe to RSS - Labour and Employment Law