The Industrial Court has dismissed a multimillion-shilling lawsuit by a former senior accountant at Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited (UEGCL), ruling that the state power generation company acted within the law when it declined to renew his fixed-term contract despite his claims that he was pushed out for exposing alleged corruption.
In a landmark judgment delivered on July 3, 2026, the court rejected claims by Samuel William Bamusonighe, who had accused UEGCL of orchestrating a retaliatory campaign after he allegedly blew the whistle on financial impropriety inside the company.
Instead, the court held that UEGCL merely exercised its contractual discretion not to renew the accountant’s employment and was under no legal obligation to justify the decision or subject him to disciplinary proceedings before the contract expired.
Whistleblower or disgruntled employee?
The case stemmed from events dating back to 2017.
Bamusonighe, who joined UEGCL in November 2009 as a Senior Accountant before later becoming Project Accountant, claimed that everything changed after he reported alleged fraud, abuse of office and procurement irregularities within the electricity generation company in November 2016.
According to court records, he alleged that following the disclosure:
- He was sent on what he described as forced leave;
- His office email and accounting system access were blocked;
- His security clearance was withdrawn;
- His office workstation was dismantled;
- His position was effectively advertised before his contract expired;
- Senior managers allegedly frustrated his attempts to secure future employment.
He argued these actions amounted to constructive dismissal disguised as non-renewal of his contract.
The former accountant demanded nearly UGX 1 billion in compensation, including lost future earnings amounting to UGX 936 million, aggravated damages, punitive damages and other employment benefits.
UEGCL: Contract simply expired
UEGCL strongly denied the allegations.
The company maintained that Bamusonighe’s employment naturally came to an end when his three-year fixed contract expired on May 30, 2017.
Management argued that the decision not to renew was based on declining performance appraisals, pointing to weaknesses in tax management, reconciliations, audit preparation and management accounts.
The utility also denied targeting him over whistleblowing, insisting it never knew he was the alleged whistleblower and saying the identity of whoever authored the corruption report remained unknown.
UEGCL further argued that the Project Accountant position had been abolished during restructuring and replaced with a different managerial role.
Court rejects retaliation claim
The panel led by Industrial Court Head Judge Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha sided with UEGCL.
The judges found no evidence that the company had made an express promise to renew Bamusonighe’s contract.
Although management minutes had at one stage discussed renewing his employment, the court said those internal discussions were never communicated to him and therefore could not create a legally enforceable expectation.
“The Respondent had discretion to renew or not to, and therefore to change its mind,” the court held after analysing the company’s management records.
The court added that once UEGCL issued him with a formal notice informing him that his contract would not be renewed, any expectation of continued employment was extinguished.
Surprise finding on performance appraisal
Interestingly, while the court ultimately dismissed the case, it criticized one aspect of UEGCL’s conduct.
Evidence showed Bamusonighe had scored 62 percent in his final appraisal—above the company’s then existing pass mark.
Management later introduced a new performance threshold of 70 percent and attempted to rely on that higher benchmark when explaining why his contract was not renewed.
The judges ruled that retrospectively applying the new pass mark to an earlier appraisal was unfair.
“It is clear that at 62%, he had passed, and it was unfair to rate him on a pass mark that was introduced post the appraisal,” the judgment stated.
However, the court concluded that this finding did not alter the legal position because UEGCL still possessed contractual discretion to decline renewal of the fixed-term contract.
Court dismantles whistleblower argument
One of the most striking aspects of the judgment concerns the whistleblower allegations.
Bamusonighe argued that his non-renewal violated Uganda’s whistleblower protection laws because he had exposed corruption.
But the judges found serious weaknesses in that claim.
They observed that the alleged whistleblower report presented before court had been signed by “concerned citizens” rather than Bamusonighe personally.
The court said there was no convincing evidence that he authored the disclosure.
Even more significantly, the judges held that by openly identifying himself in court as the alleged whistleblower and placing the disclosure on the public court record, he had undermined the confidentiality requirements under the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
Consequently, the court ruled that he could not rely on statutory whistleblower protections.
No forced leave
The Industrial Court also rejected Bamusonighe’s claim that he had been forced onto leave.
Instead, judges found that management merely advised him to utilize his accumulated leave before his contract expired—something expressly permitted under his employment contract.
The court noted he could alternatively have opted for payment in lieu of untaken leave but failed to prove that leave had actually been imposed against his will.
Important precedent for employers
Beyond the dispute itself, the judgment is expected to become an important precedent in Uganda’s employment law.
The Industrial Court reaffirmed that employers are generally not obliged to renew fixed-term contracts and that expiry of such contracts does not amount to unfair dismissal.
It emphasized that unless an employer makes a clear and unequivocal promise of renewal, courts will not interfere with managerial discretion.
The judges further clarified that declining to renew a fixed-term contract differs fundamentally from dismissing an employee for misconduct or poor performance before the contract expires.
Billion-shilling claim collapses
Having found that UEGCL acted lawfully, the court threw out all of Bamusonighe’s claims for compensation.
His demands for lost earnings, damages and other remedies were rejected in full.
The judges also declined to award legal costs to either side, holding that the claim was not frivolous despite ultimately failing.
“In the final, this claim fails. No order as to costs is made,” the court ruled.
