Makerere asks court to halt UGX 100M award to staff

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT  | Makerere University has appealed against the hefty court fines awarded to eight university accountants.

The staff successfully dragged the university to court for acting beyond its powers, unfairly and illegally by endlessly shutting the staff out from promotion and keeping them at the same rank for more than ten years.

They are Sarah Nabawanuka, George Mbabazi, Epaphrah Barenga, James Grace Sserugga, Paul Kiggundu, Herbert Tumukunde, Godfrey Kato and Teddy Tusabe Mugisa, all staff of Makerere University initially recruited in salary scales M13-M15.

In his March 29th 2019 ruling, Justice Musa Ssekaana discovered that the university was operating illegally and ordered its Appointments Board to determine the staff’s promotion applications expeditiously within 90 days with an open mind and make an informed decision based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of their case.

The judge also granted costs of the application to the staff.

After computing the costs, court awarded the staff 109.6 million shillings inclusive of the sum bill of costs of 59.6 million shillings and instruction fees amounting to 50 million shillings.

However, the university through its legal directorate has filed an application appealing against the costs.

According to the application filed in the Civil Division of High Court, Makerere argues that it is a public body depending on public finance which is subject to audit queries if the amount awarded in costs to staff is paid.

Yusuf Kiranda, the acting University Secretary, says that the total award to the staff is intended to confine access to Courts of Law to the wealth.

“The taxing officer erred both in law and fact in awarding the respondents (staff) the sum of Shs.59.6 million in an ordinary miscellaneous application which were manifesting excessive in the circumstances,” reads Kiranda’s affidavit in part.

Kiranda also argues that the tax officer also erred in law and fact in awarding the staff instruction fees all of which were manifestly excessive.

The university wants the decision by the court set aside and be another registrar offered in substitute.

The staff had applied for promotion through the Appointments Board from their initial ranks of clerical officers.

Their promotion applications were premised on the fact that they had trained on continuous regular staff development through academic improvement, on job training through personal mentorship, close supervision, attendance of seminars and workshops and acquired sufficient qualifications and experience for promotion under the university human resources manual.

They further indicate in documents submitted to Court that the university has since 2007 and 2009 used them to do higher offices work but refused to promote them to the very positions for which they were qualified and experienced and were assigned and deployed and continue to occupy.

******

URN