Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Southern Foundries v.

Sherlow (1940) AC 701 Mr Shirlaw had been the managing director of Southern Foundries Ltd, which was in the business of iron castings. But then another company called Federated Foundries Ltd took over the business. The new owners had altered article 8 of Southern Foundries Ltd's constitution, empowering two directors and the secretary (who were friend of Federated Foundries) to remove any director. Then they acted on it, by sacking Mr Shirlaw. Mr Shirlaw's contract, signed in 1933 stated that he was to remain in post for ten years. Mr Shirlaw sued the company for breach of contract, claiming for an injunction to stay in office or substantiate the damages.Humphrey's J in the High Court awarded 12,000 to Mr Shirlaw for breach of contract.[Court of AppealThe Court of Appeal held (Sir Wilfrid Greene MR dissenting on this point) that it was an implied term in the 21 December 1933 agreement that the company would not remove Mr Shirlaw from his directorship for the time in which he was appointed as managing director. Furthermore it was held that it was an implied term that the company would not alter its articles to create a right of removal and there was no case for reducing the damages awarded by the High Court. Patel v. International Motor mart (1969) EA 303 The appellant was engaged as an accountant on June 27th, 1966 at a salary of shs. 1500 per monthly basis for a period of six months. He started work but left later after receiving payment for the number of days worked and never returned but sent a telegram to the respondent his employer regret withdrawing my appointment. The respondents were without an accountant some months but engaged one in the month of august. The appellant urged that the respondent had broken the contract of service by causing him to perform as a cashier and to handle insurance matters which were not within the scope of his contract as an accountant. It was held that there was no ground for holding the respondent liable for breach of contract and the court awarded them shs.1500 for damages and on appeal, damages were reduced to 750 shilling and appeal dismissed. Konig v. Karanjee Naranjel Properties (1968) E.A. 223 The appellant was employed by the respondent as a manager and engineer of a sisal fibre spinning factory by a written contract for 3 years from march 1966 at a monthly salary of shs. 500. The appellant had disagreements with the respondent and he asked for his local leave but the respondent refused arguing that he gets back to work and when he did not his contract was terminated summarily and his salary was withheld, he sued the respondent for damages for wrongful dismissal. It was held that a master is entitled to dismiss his servant summarily for wilful disobedience of his masters lawful and reasonable order which it is his duty to obey and therefore the dismissal was rightful although he was entitled to his salary.

Kafuma v. Masaka District Co-operative Growers Union (1975) HCB 283 The entered into a written agreement of service with the defendant on a monthly salary of shs. 1100 and was later transferred to kaaliro as an assistant manager at a salary f shs. 1353 but the plaintiff received a letter from the supervising manager of the defendant for termination of service following clauses 6, 7 and 9 of the contract. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for general damages of breach of agreement and wrongful dismissal and for shs.810 for 18days he had worked for before his dismissal and for 42 day accrued leave. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to his shs. 810 for the 18days worked, pay in lieu of leave for 42 days of notice but was not entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal. Sekimpi v. Uganda Breweries Ltd (1972) 2 ULR 132 The plaintiff was employed by a letter as a driver salesman on probation for 3 months. He was verbally suspended but the defendant on 6th July , 1969 without pay and his suspension was confirmed on 7th July and court latter learnt that his letter was given to him on 30th July. The plaintiff contended that his suspension of July was unlawful and that since he was never subsequently dismissed, was entitled to his pay form 5th July to 13TH October the date of his suit. It was held that the contract here did not give the defendant a right to suspend nor was any established practice and therefore the suspension was unlawful and he was awarded one month salary for July and one additional salary in lieu of notice. Kiggundu v. Barclays Bank of Uganda (1973) E.A. 569 The plaintiff was employed by the defendants and was dismissed for issuing travellers cheques contrary to the exchange control regulations. He had not been prosecuted for any offence on his suit and he sued for wrongful dismissal and he contended that he had been wrongfully dismissed as he had not been convicted of any offence. It was held that a conviction is not necessary before an employee can be dismissed for misconduct and the suit was dismissed. W. Niwemuguzi v. National Water & Sewerage Corporation SCCA No.26/1993 The plaintiff contended that there was no agreement made between her and the employer for termination of her contact but the supreme court speaking through JSC held that it is not necessary that the master dismissing a servant for good cause should state the grounds for such dismissal and that provided good cause as a ground existed in the fact, its immaterial whether or not it was known to the employer the time of dismissal, justification of dismissal can accordingly be shown by proof of facts ascertainable subsequent to dismissal.

KAMPALA INTERNATIOL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW

NAME

WINTER SYLVIA

REGNO.

LLB/10028/81/DU

COURSE UNIT.

LABOUR LAW 1

YEAR

4TH

SEM

1ST

SUBMISSION DATE.

21ST NOVEMBER 2011

LECTURERS NAME.

EFG AJAYI BL.

Labour Law Course Work Instructions: Type written Maximum 4 pages Latest submission time: 21st Nov. 2011 Question: The following are cases related to and or connected with terms and conditions of employment in Uganda and other jurisdictions. In each case, state the fact(s) as briefly as possible, identify the ratio and the implication(s) for Labour Law.

Turner v. Mason (1845) 14 M&W 112; 153 E.R. 411 Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co. v. Ansell (1888) 39 ch. D. 338 A.M. Jabi v. Mbale Municipal Council (1975) HCB 191 McClelland v. N.Ireland General Health Services Board (1957) 2 ALL ER 129 East African Airways v. Knight (1975) EA 165 Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) A.C. 701 Patel v. International Motor mart (1969) EA 303 Wamala v. Uganda Press Trust Ltd (1982) HCB 114 Southern Foundries v. Sherlow (1940) AC 701 Kafuma v. Masaka District Co-operative Growers Union (1975) HCB 283 Konig v. Karanjee Naranjel Properties (1968) E.A. 223 Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Ltd. (1957) A.C. 555 Price v. Mouat (1862) 11 C.B. W.S. 508 Sinclair v. Neighbour (1967) 2 Q.B. 279 Kiggundu v. Barclays Bank of Uganda (1973) E.A. 569 Sekimpi v. Uganda Breweries Ltd (1972) 2 ULR 132 Bell v. Lever Bros (1932) AC 161 Kibirige v. UCB (1992) 11 KALR 162 Barclays Bank of Uganda v. Godfrey Mubiru Civ. App 10 of 1998 Bank of Uganda v. F. Masaba & Others C.A. 3/1993 W. Niwemuguzi v. National Water & Sewerage Corporation SCCA No.26/1993 Poussard v. Spiers & Pound (1876) 1 QBD 410

EFG Ajayi, BL

Оценить