The Industrial Court has ruled that Kyambogo University unfairly discriminated against former kitchen attendant Magdalene Atono by placing her on a salary scale the court found did not exist, while colleagues performing similar duties were confirmed on better terms.

A major labour dispute involving Kyambogo University has ended with a damning finding against the public institution, with the Industrial Court faulting its handling of a former employee who worked for more than 12 years under successive temporary contracts.

In an award delivered on October 27, 2026, the Industrial Court in Kampala found that the university unjustifiably placed Magdalene Atono on salary scale M20, which the court described as a non-existent categorisation, instead of the approved M15 scale for kitchen attendants.

The court concluded that the university’s decision to keep Atono on short-term contracts while colleagues doing the same job were confirmed on permanent terms amounted to unlawful unfair discrimination under employment law.

The ruling raises serious questions about the university’s application of its own employment structure, the treatment of long-serving support staff and the use of temporary contracts in a public institution.

According to the 45-page award in Magdalene Atono v Kyambogo University, Labour Dispute Claim No. 13 of 2015, Atono joined Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo in May 2000 as a casual worker earning Shs40,000 before her employment was transferred to the newly established Kyambogo University following the merger of institutions in 2003.

Court finds salary structure was applied arbitrarily

The court’s findings were particularly damaging because Kyambogo University had already approved a salary structure that placed kitchen attendants under support staff on salary scale M15, with an O-Level certificate as the academic requirement.

However, when Atono was appointed under a one-year contract in November 2009, the university placed her on M20, a scale the court found did not exist for the position.

Her monthly salary was fixed at Shs201,422, while colleagues appointed to the same position under M15 received a salary of Shs121,729 to Shs143,740, plus Shs139,000 in benefits, bringing their total monthly remuneration to Shs260,729.

The court examined the appointment records of Daniel Muhumuza, Najjuma Musisi, Tumwesigye Ben and Christine Achan, who had been confirmed in the same position while Atono remained on temporary terms.

The university defended its decision by arguing that Atono had failed to meet a credit-in-English requirement introduced in a 2012 recruitment advertisement.

But the court rejected that justification for her earlier treatment, noting that the university’s approved structure required only an O-Level certificate when she was appointed under the new structure in 2009.

“It is glaringly evident that, by 2009, the person specification for the Kitchen Attendant position required an ‘O’ Level certificate and nothing else,” the court observed.

It added that the university had produced no evidence to justify placing Atono in a non-existent employee category or denying her confirmation when colleagues were confirmed.

The court consequently found that the distinction was arbitrary and disproportionate, and that the university had failed to demonstrate any legitimate justification for treating her differently.

12 years on temporary contracts

Atono’s employment journey began in May 2000, when she joined Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo as a casual worker earning Shs40,000.

Following the 2003 merger that created Kyambogo University, her employment was transferred to the new institution. She subsequently served under successive six-month contracts before receiving a one-year contract in November 2009.

Despite obtaining a Certificate in Hotel and Institutional Catering from Kyambogo University in 2007, she was never confirmed on permanent terms before her employment ended in December 2012.

The court found that she had continued performing the same job for years under repeatedly renewed contracts, even after the university had introduced a new employment structure.

It adopted the principle that the true nature of an employment relationship must be assessed from the actual circumstances, rather than simply from the labels used in appointment letters.

The judges observed that keeping Atono on successive temporary contracts appeared intended to avoid granting her the rights available to permanent staff under the university’s employment structure.

The award stated that the practice was inconsistent with the university’s obligations under its own terms and conditions of service.

Court awards Shs19.9 million-plus, interest and costs

The Industrial Court partially allowed Atono’s claim and ordered Kyambogo University to pay several remedies.

Key financial awards

Shs8,996,952

Salary arrears

For the period November 5, 2009, to December 31, 2012, with interest at 10% per annum as specified in the award.

Shs10,000,000

Exemplary damages

Awarded to punish the unfair discrimination, with interest at 10% per annum from October 27, 2026, until full payment.

2 months’ salary

Payment in lieu of notice

The university was ordered to pay two months’ salary in lieu of notice.

Half the costs

Legal costs

The court awarded Atono half the costs of the claim.

The salary arrears and exemplary damages alone total Shs18,996,952, excluding interest. The final amount payable will also depend on the two months’ salary in lieu of notice, the awarded costs and applicable interest.

The Shs10 million exemplary damages award is particularly significant. The court explained that such damages are intended to punish misconduct and discourage similar conduct, rather than simply compensate a claimant for financial loss.

It found that the arbitrary placement of Atono on the wrong salary scale, her underpayment and the denial of confirmation justified the punitive award.

Magdalene Atono v Kyambogo University 2026 UGIC 108 (27 October 2026).pdf

University escapes unlawful termination finding

Despite the strong findings on discrimination, the court did not rule entirely in Atono’s favour.

It rejected her claim that the termination itself was unlawful, distinguishing the expiry of her final fixed-term contract from the unfair treatment she had suffered during employment.

The court also declined to award the Shs10 million in general damages she had sought for unlawful termination because it had not found the termination unlawful.

On her claim for unpaid National Social Security Fund (NSSF) contributions, the court said there was no evidence on record establishing that the university had remitted contributions or that Atono had been registered with the Fund for that purpose.

However, it declined to make an award, stating that it had no sufficient basis to determine the issue and that NSSF should be interested in pursuing the matter.

The ruling therefore leaves a clear distinction: while the university was not held liable for unlawful termination, it was held accountable for unfair discrimination and the financial consequences arising from its treatment of Atono.

A warning to public institutions

The judgment is a significant reminder that public universities and other employers cannot automatically avoid employment obligations by repeatedly renewing temporary contracts while workers perform the same duties for years.

It also reinforces the importance of applying approved salary structures consistently and providing defensible reasons when employees in comparable positions receive different treatment.

For Kyambogo University, the court’s findings go beyond a salary dispute. They expose weaknesses in the institution’s handling of staff categorisation, remuneration and confirmation into permanent employment.

The case, decided by Head Judge Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha with an Industrial Court panel, was delivered in Kampala on October 27, 2026.

The bottom line: Kyambogo University has been ordered to pay a former kitchen attendant salary arrears, exemplary damages, two months’ salary in lieu of notice and half the costs of her case after the court found that it had unfairly discriminated against her through an unjustified salary classification and denial of confirmation.