The High Court has dismissed an attempt by former TotalEnergies EP Uganda Deputy Director of Health, Safety, Security and Environment (HSSE), Amos Mwase, to overturn his dismissal over allegations of sexual harassment, ruling that he pursued the wrong legal avenue and failed to exhaust the remedies available under employment law.
In a ruling delivered on July 11, 2026, Justice Bernard Namanya declined to entertain Mwase’s judicial review application, holding that the dispute was a private employment matter that should first have been handled by a Labour Officer and, if necessary, the Industrial Court—not the High Court exercising judicial review jurisdiction.
The decision is a significant victory for TotalEnergies EP Uganda, which had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Mwase had abandoned the company’s internal appeals process and bypassed the statutory mechanisms established under Uganda’s Employment Act.
Dismissed after sexual harassment investigation
According to court records, Mwase, who had worked for TotalEnergies for 13 years and rose to become Deputy Director of HSSE in 2023, was dismissed on December 22, 2025 following an internal disciplinary process arising from allegations made by a female subordinate, Process Safety Engineer Jean Gift Kisakye.
The allegations stemmed from complaints that Mwase had sexually harassed Kisakye over a period extending between June 2024 and June 2025.
The company also accused him of improperly disclosing her confidential medical information and involvement in incidents that allegedly amounted to workplace harassment.
Mwase denied all the accusations.
He claimed the complaints only surfaced after a heated performance appraisal meeting on October 20, 2025 during which he identified shortcomings in Kisakye’s work.
According to his affidavit, the meeting ended acrimoniously and afterwards Kisakye allegedly warned him: “I will get all of you for this.”
Mwase argued that the disciplinary proceedings which followed were motivated by retaliation rather than genuine misconduct.
Claims of bias and predetermined verdict
In court, Mwase painted the disciplinary process as fundamentally unfair.
He alleged that during the disciplinary hearing, the committee chairman openly indicated there was already sufficient evidence to establish his guilt before hearing his defence.
He also accused the committee of ignoring MTN telephone records which he said demonstrated mutual communication with the complainant and contradicted allegations of harassment.
Mwase further argued that TotalEnergies breached its own disciplinary procedures by acting months after the complaint was allegedly lodged and by communicating the dismissal outside timelines prescribed under the company’s disciplinary code.
He sought orders quashing his dismissal, reinstatement to his senior position, declarations that the disciplinary proceedings were illegal, irrational and procedurally improper, together with general damages and costs.
Company insists process was fair
TotalEnergies rejected every allegation.
The company’s Human Resources Director, Christine Sekyana, told court that Kisakye had initially reported the sexual harassment complaint to Human Resources in June 2025 but had not wanted the matter escalated at the time.
After a formal ethics alert was later lodged, the company conducted preliminary investigations before referring the matter to its Integrity Committee and subsequently to a disciplinary committee.
According to the company, Mwase was fully informed of the allegations, supplied with supporting material, allowed to file written responses, attended the hearing accompanied by two lawyers and was given every opportunity to defend himself.
The company maintained that after considering all evidence, including the complainant’s material and Mwase’s responses, the disciplinary committee concluded that his explanations were insufficient and dismissed him in accordance with its zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment.
Court never examined the allegations
Crucially, Justice Namanya never determined whether Mwase was guilty or innocent of sexual harassment.
Instead, the judge found that the application collapsed on procedural grounds before the court could even consider the evidence surrounding the allegations.
The court ruled that Mwase voluntarily abandoned TotalEnergies’ own appeal process after filing an appeal against his dismissal.
Although the company scheduled an independent appeals hearing for February 11, 2026, Mwase declined to attend, arguing that the appeal would merely sanitise an already flawed disciplinary process.
Justice Namanya disagreed.
He held that because Mwase failed to pursue the internal appeal to its conclusion, he could not immediately seek judicial review.
Wrong forum
The judge went further, holding that even if the internal appeal had been exhausted, Mwase should still have first presented his grievance before a Labour Officer under the Employment Act.
The court cited Sections 11, 12, 92 and 93 of the Employment Act, which require employment disputes involving alleged wrongful dismissal to be reported first to a Labour Officer before any appeal proceeds to the Industrial Court.
Justice Namanya observed that Uganda’s labour laws provide an elaborate dispute-resolution framework specifically designed to handle employment grievances.
By ignoring that process and instead filing judicial review proceedings directly in the High Court, Mwase had approached the wrong forum.
Private employer not subject to judicial review
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the ruling is the court’s clarification on judicial review against private companies.
Justice Namanya held that TotalEnergies EP Uganda is a private corporate entity and that its disciplinary decisions do not automatically become public law decisions simply because the company plays a significant role in Uganda’s petroleum industry.
The judge rejected arguments that the strategic importance of the oil sector transformed the company’s employment decisions into matters of public interest subject to judicial review.
He ruled that judicial review is generally reserved for public bodies exercising governmental or statutory powers and cannot ordinarily be used to challenge disciplinary decisions arising from private employment relationships.
Application dismissed with costs
Having upheld all three preliminary objections raised by TotalEnergies, Justice Namanya declined to consider the substantive allegations concerning the fairness of the disciplinary process or the sexual harassment accusations.
Instead, he dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered Mwase to pay the company’s legal costs.
The ruling serves as a strong reminder that employees challenging dismissal decisions must first exhaust both internal disciplinary appeals and the statutory labour dispute mechanisms before seeking intervention from the High Court through judicial review proceedings.
While the judgment leaves unresolved the factual dispute over the sexual harassment allegations, it firmly reinforces the principle that Uganda’s employment disputes must ordinarily be resolved through the specialised labour law framework rather than the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
