ATTORNEY GENERAL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT
BEFORE: AG. JUDGE REMMY KASULE
JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff together with nine others instituted this suit against the Attorney General claiming declarations that the retirement of each one of them as employee of the External Security
Organisations is null and void, and that each one still remains an employee. They also claimed an order that the External Security
Organisation continues to pay each plaintiff’s salary and allowances plus interest on all arrears thereof due.
The pleaded facts of the are claim each plaintiff was employed by the External Security
Organisation Under terms and conditions of The Security
Organisations (Terms and Conditions of Service) Regulations No. 80 of 2002.
By the said terms and conditions each Plaintiff had security of employment tenure not determinable without one’s consent under Regulations 15 and 32.
On 01.07.02 the Director General, External Security
Organisation in the course of his employment, purported to retire the plaintiffs from their employment, purported to retire the plaintiffs from their employment because of organization restructuring. The plaintiffs contend that the Director General acted wrongfully and in breach of the Regulations and has no legal power to retire them except under Regulations 15 and 32. The plaintiffs’ claims were denied by the Defendant, arguing that the termination of service was not due to incompetence or inability to warrant an opportunity for plaintiff to defend oneself before a disciplinary Committee.
Each plaintiff was lawfully retired under the executive mandate enshrined in the security organization Act. None of the plaintiffs was entitled to reinstatement or to any payment of arrears.
The formal case hearing started with conferencing on 17.06.05 before
Tabaro J. on 01.08.03 a consent judgment was entered in
favour of the other plaintiffs against the Defendant, except Ms
Tumusiime Fidelis, the 5
th plaintiff. In the Judgment the Defendant was to pay each plaintiff a sum of money being terminal benefits, interest of 10% per annum. Thereon starting 01.07.02 till payment in full, as well as the taxed costs of the suit.
The 5
th plaintiff refused the terms of the settlement contending she is entitled to be paid for the nine years being the period she would have worked had her contract not been prematurely terminated. She insisted on court making a decision on the issue.
Both the 5
th plaintiff and
Defendnat agreed on facts and there was no oral testimony from any witness. The agreed upon facts are that:-
The 5
th plaintiff was appointed staff officer Grade 6 with External Security
Organisation starting 02.03.91. The terms of her appointment are as per the Security
Organisation Act, Cap 205, and The Security Regulations, made there under and the
