The Industrial Court of Uganda has delivered a major blow to PostBank Uganda Ltd, ruling that the bank unfairly and unlawfully dismissed former Branch Manager Sanyu Dickson after subjecting him to what the Court described as an unfair performance regime marked by drastically increased targets, inadequate support and failure to consider his COVID-19 illness.
Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana, sitting with a three-member panel, found that although PostBank followed some of the required disciplinary procedures, the bank failed to establish a fair and reasonable substantive basis for firing Dickson over poor performance.
The Court awarded Dickson UGX61.3 million in severance, general and aggravated damages, ordered PostBank to restore his preferential staff-loan interest rate from 16% to 10%, and directed the bank to pay the costs of the case.
The judgment, delivered on September 14, 2026, could have far-reaching implications for how Ugandan employers use Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) to manage and eventually dismiss underperforming employees.
Court rejects PostBank’s performance case
Dickson joined PostBank on September 17, 2015 as a Business Growth Manager and was later promoted to Branch Manager of the bank’s Kabale Branch.
His monthly salary had risen to UGX4.22 million, and the Court noted that his previous performance had been satisfactory.
However, in 2021, he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan and subsequently dismissed on August 18, 2021 for failing to meet performance targets.
Dickson argued that the targets had been quadrupled, were unrealistic and were imposed without his participation at a time when Uganda’s economy was being battered by COVID-19 restrictions, lockdown measures and lending constraints.
The Court agreed with him.
It found evidence showing that the 2021 targets were quadrupled compared with previous years and were imposed in February rather than the first week of January, contrary to PostBank’s own internal policy.
Even more damaging to the bank’s case was evidence that there had been no formal appraisal for January to June 2021, despite the bank using the period to assess Dickson’s performance.
The Court described the fourfold increase in targets as “neither reasonable, realistic, equitable nor achievable”, particularly given the circumstances prevailing at the time.
COVID-19 illness sealed PostBank’s fate
The Court was particularly critical of PostBank’s failure to factor in Dickson’s medical condition.
Evidence before the Court showed that Dickson tested positive for COVID-19 on June 10, 2021, in the middle of the PIP review period.
Yet, according to the judgment, PostBank did not evaluate the effect of his illness or seek his response concerning the final performance report before proceeding towards termination.
Justice Musana held that dismissing an employee for failing to meet inflated targets while he was recovering from a documented illness, without adjusting the metrics or extending the evaluation period, undermined substantive fairness.
The Court also rejected PostBank’s argument that some sectors, including agriculture and UPDF-related lending, remained viable during the restrictions.
It held that nationwide restrictions on lending and mobility had to be considered when determining whether the targets were realistic.
‘Set up to fail’
Perhaps the most damaging finding for PostBank was the Court’s conclusion that the bank failed to provide Dickson with the support required under its own Human Resource policies.
The Court found no evidence of training, mentorship, coaching or other meaningful support between January 2021 and his termination in August.
Under the bank’s Human Resource Policy Manual, PostBank was required to provide employees on PIPs with the necessary tools, skills, manpower and coaching needed to achieve the targets.
The Court found that this obligation had not been met.
It consequently held that the PIP was substantively unfair.
In a particularly damning finding, the Court concluded that “the Respondent set up the Claimant to fail his PIP” by imposing unrealistic targets while failing to account for the COVID-19 lockdown and Dickson’s illness.
Court draws red line on PIPs
The judgment sends a strong warning to employers that a Performance Improvement Plan cannot simply be used as a paper trail to justify dismissal.
The Court said a valid PIP must be a genuine developmental and corrective tool, rather than a bureaucratic mechanism or “veil” for engineering termination.
Among the requirements identified by the Court are employee participation in designing the PIP, realistic and measurable SMART targets, adequate time and resources, continuous feedback, coaching and periodic reviews.
Most importantly, failure to complete a PIP successfully does not automatically justify termination. The employee must still be given a formal disciplinary hearing and an opportunity to explain why the targets were not achieved.
PostBank passed the procedure test — but failed the fairness test
Interestingly, the Court did not find PostBank procedurally defective in every respect.
It held that the bank had issued Dickson a written notice, gave him seven days to prepare his defence, informed him of the allegations and advised him of his right to be accompanied by another person.
The Court therefore found the disciplinary process procedurally compliant.
But that victory proved insufficient.
The Court drew a crucial distinction between procedural fairness and substantive fairness, ruling that an employer can follow the disciplinary process yet still unlawfully dismiss an employee if the underlying reason for termination is unfair or unjustifiable.
The Court ultimately found that PostBank had failed to discharge its statutory burden of proving a fair and reasonable cause for termination.
PostBank ordered to pay millions
The financial consequences are significant.
The Court awarded Dickson:
- UGX25,975,439 in severance pay;
- UGX25,327,206 in general damages;
- UGX10 million in aggravated damages;
- Costs of the claim.
The Court rejected several other claims, including Dickson’s claim for outstanding salary, hardship allowances, bonuses, repatriation and basic/additional compensation because they were either insufficiently proved or unavailable under the applicable law.
Bank also stopped from hiking staff loan rate
The judgment also delivers an important ruling on employee loans.
After Dickson’s employment ended, PostBank increased the interest rate on his staff personal loan from 10% to 16% per annum, moving it to the commercial rate.
The Court declared the increase “legally untenable” and ordered the bank to immediately restore the loan to the 10% preferential staff rate.
The Court reasoned that where termination is unlawful, an employer should not compound the employee’s hardship by converting a preferential staff loan into expensive commercial credit.
It stressed that losing employment already means losing income and that imposing a commercial interest rate would further punish an employee who has already suffered an unfair dismissal.
A warning shot to Uganda’s employers
The Sanyu Dickson judgment is therefore more than an individual employment dispute.
It establishes a sharp judicial warning that employers cannot manufacture impossible performance targets, deny employees meaningful support and then rely on missed targets as an automatic justification for dismissal.
For PostBank, the case ends with a formal declaration that Dickson was unlawfully dismissed, millions of shillings in damages and costs, and an order preventing the bank from charging the higher commercial interest rate on his outstanding staff loan.
The award was delivered electronically on September 14, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. and is to be published on the Uganda Legal Information Institute and Industrial Court websites.
