The six major legal issues in Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd. Vs. Nassanga Saphinah Kasule (C.O.A CA. No. 182 of 2021)

Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Limited versus Nassanga Saphinah Kasule (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 182 of 2021) raises numerous issues which are pertinent for us to understand.

Click here to watch the case brief summary

 

In summary, this case discusses the following major points of law.

1. The Distinction between a Notice of Appeal under Rule 86 and a Notice of Cross Appeal under Rule 91 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.

2. The power of the Court of Appeal as the first appellate court in decisions from the Industrial Court.

3. Rights of an employee upon determination and rights upon dismissal for misconduct.

4. The difference between Pleadings and Witness Statements.

5. The significance of sticking to one's pleadings.

6. The Distinction between Exemplary and Aggravated Damages.

Case Brief

In this instance, the appellant submitted a preliminary objection under *Rule 86* to the striking out of a Notice of Cross Appeal, but the court overruled it, underlining that *Rule 86* pertains to the Memorandum of Appeal, not the Notice of Cross Appeal under *Rule 91*. The court highlighted the Court of Appeal's restricted jurisdiction as the first appeal court in Industrial Court decisions, emphasizing that it is limited to points of law and jurisdiction. To buttress its stance, it referenced pertinent cases such as *Bank of Uganda vs. Joseph Kibuuka*. Concerning termination of employment, the court confirmed that, unless the contract says otherwise, an employer may terminate an employment contract under *Section 65(1)(a)* without presenting reasons. 

The court cited decisions such as *Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited vs. Deogratious Asiimwe* and *Bank of Uganda vs. Kibuuka*, stressing that only *Section 65(1)(c)* of the Employment Act requires justifications.

The court addressed the distinction between pleadings and witness testimonies, emphasizing that parties are bound by their pleadings and that any evidence that does not support the pleadings is to be ignored. Unpleaded issues cannot serve as the foundation for a court decision, maintaining fairness and obedience to the right of a fair hearing.

The court also made a distinction between the right to a hearing before dismissal for misbehavior or poor performance under *Section 66* and the absence of such a necessity for termination under *Section 65(1)(a)*. It highlighted that unless allegations are presented against the employee, a hearing is not required for termination

The court cited examples such as *Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited vs. Deogratious Asiimwe* and *Bank of Uganda vs. Kibuuka* to emphasize that  *reasons* are required only under termination subject to sec. 65(1)(c) of the employment Act

Finally, the court defined the difference between exemplary and aggravated damages, holding that the former serves a punitive purpose while the latter pays for emotional and dignity harm. It held that the termination was legitimate under the circumstances and that there was no basis for imposing exemplary or aggravated damages.

In summary, the court presented in-depth insights into legal issues such as notice of appeal, Court of Appeal jurisdiction, termination of employment, the requirement for a hearing, the significance of pleadings, and the distinction between exemplary and aggravated damages.

Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Limited, the appellant, was represented by 

Mr. Bwogi Kalibala while the respondent, Nassanga Saphinah Kasule represented herself. 

The case filed in 2021, had it's  final judgment delivered on November 15th 2023.

Ahimbisibwe Innocent Benjamin

(Africa Multi-Award Winning)