The Supreme Court has awarded Shs100 million in general damages to Doreen Tusiime after finding that the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) unlawfully failed to deploy her to a position she had been validly appointed to by the Public Service Commission in 2012.
In a judgment delivered by a panel comprising Justices Percy Night Tuhaise, Elizabeth Musoke, Christopher Madrama Izama, Catherine Bamugemereire and Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi, the country’s highest court overturned an earlier Court of Appeal decision, holding that Tusiime’s judicial review application was filed within the prescribed statutory time limit.
Justice Catherine Bamugemereire, who authored the lead judgment, ruled that KCCA’s repeated assurances that Tusiime would be deployed once funds became available prevented the limitation period from running until the authority eventually communicated that her deployment had been halted indefinitely.
“The respondent repeatedly deferred the appellant’s appointment over several years, asserting that deployment would occur once sufficient funds were made available. These assurances reasonably led the appellant to believe that the matter would be resolved administratively without the need for litigation,” Justice Bamugemereire ruled.
Court records show that after the Public Service Commission appointed Tusiime as an Officer Prosecution in October 2012, she reported for duty but was verbally informed that her deployment had been suspended due to a lack of funds. Similar explanations were given in subsequent financial years until October 6, 2016, when KCCA formally informed her that her deployment had been halted sine die (indefinitely).
Tusiime subsequently filed a judicial review application in the High Court, which quashed KCCA’s decision, ordered her deployment and awarded compensation equivalent to her lost salary. However, the Court of Appeal later overturned that ruling, finding that the application had been filed outside the statutory three-month limitation period.
Justice Bamugemereire held that Tusiime’s cause of action only crystallised after KCCA issued its final communication on October 6, 2016.
“It was only through the letter dated 6 October 2016 that the respondent communicated a final administrative decision halting the appellant’s deployment indefinitely,” she said.
The court noted that Tusiime filed her judicial review application just 14 days later, well within the statutory period.
Justice Bamugemereire also criticised the Court of Appeal for adopting what she described as an overly rigid interpretation of limitation laws.
“The limitation in judicial review must be interpreted in light of the process that leads to the alleged wrongdoing. When a public authority continues to withhold or delay the execution of a valid appointment, this is not a single completed act but an ongoing administrative omission.”
She further warned that allowing public authorities to indefinitely defer appointments would undermine constitutional governance.
“Deferred employment may be accepted solely as a short-term administrative expedient, but it cannot be lawfully utilised to extinguish vested rights or to perpetuate uncertainty regarding the tenure of public officers.”
The Supreme Court restored the High Court’s declaration that KCCA had acted unlawfully and affirmed that Tusiime’s appointment remained valid.
However, the justices dismissed her claim for salary arrears, National Social Security Fund (NSSF) contributions and other employment benefits dating back to 2012, holding that she never actually assumed office or rendered service.
Justice Bamugemereire explained that salaries and employment benefits accrue only after an employee takes up office and performs their duties.
“To award salary or allowances for a period in which no service was rendered would amount to unjust enrichment and would contradict the principle that remuneration flows from service.”
Nevertheless, the court found that KCCA’s prolonged administrative failure warranted compensation.
“The respondent’s administrative error warrants compensation through general damages. Salary arrears and employment benefits are excluded, but damages remain the proper remedy.”
The Supreme Court consequently awarded Tusiime Shs100 million in general damages, with interest at 6% per annum from April 4, 2017, until payment in full.
The court further directed that each party bear its own legal costs, noting that although the appeal substantially succeeded, it would be unfair to order either side to pay the other’s costs.
