The Industrial Court has ruled that Cavendish University was right to dismiss senior lecturer Dr Fredrick Kiwuwa Lugya after establishing that he held two full-time jobs at once, one at Cavendish and another at Makerere University.
Cavendish University, a private university based in Nsambya, Kampala, runs undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in law, business, health sciences, information technology and other fields.
Dr Lugya had worked at Cavendish since 2010 as a part-time lecturer before signing a new two-year full-time employment contract in 2016. Under clause 12 of that contract, he agreed to devote his time fully to the university and not take up any other full-time job during the contract period.
In court, Dr Lugya argued that Cavendish had always known he was also employed at Makerere and had never objected to the arrangement, and that university managers had assured staff the new clause would not be enforced.
In June 2017, Dr Lugya was appointed deputy project manager for Cavendish’s Electronic Distance Learning project, a role he said came with a promise of a separate contract and extra pay. He said the pay never came despite repeated demands, and when he told management he would stop working on the project by the end of September 2017 unless he was paid, the university instead issued him a notice to show cause over breach of the non-competition clause.
He was suspended, brought before a disciplinary committee and dismissed on November 3, 2017.
Dr Lugya’s Case In Court
Dr Lugya challenged the dismissal on several grounds. He argued the disciplinary committee was illegally constituted because it lacked the deputy vice chancellor and the university’s legal officer, as required by the Human Resource Manual. He also claimed the dismissal was retaliation for demanding payment on the distance learning project, and argued the clause barring another full-time job was too broad and an unreasonable restraint on his right to work.
Under cross-examination, however, Dr Lugya admitted that when he left Cavendish in November 2017, he was still a full-time Makerere employee. He also acknowledged running a pharmacy, agricultural enterprises and a consultancy business on the side.
Cavendish’s sole witness, Deputy Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Dr Olive Sabiiti, told court that investigations showed Dr Lugya’s CV submitted during recruitment indicated he had left Makerere in 2012, yet he had remained employed there throughout his time at Cavendish. She said he admitted holding two full-time jobs during the disciplinary hearing.
She also confirmed that Cavendish had no deputy vice chancellor or legal officer in place when the disciplinary committee sat, saying the vacancies forced management to constitute the committee case by case, as the Human Resource Manual allowed.
What The Judge Ruled
Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana rejected Dr Lugya’s argument over the committee’s composition, ruling that the manual permitted the executive director to appoint members whenever vacancies existed, and that Dr Lugya had failed to prove he suffered any prejudice as a result. He ruled that the disciplinary hearing satisfied the requirements of procedural fairness under Section 65(1) of the Employment Act.
On the core question of moonlighting, Justice Musana noted that while Ugandan employment law does not expressly regulate holding multiple jobs, employees owe their employers duties of loyalty, fidelity and good faith. He said even if Cavendish had known about Dr Lugya’s Makerere job, that knowledge did not make his conduct lawful after he voluntarily signed a contract expressly barring other full-time employment.
He also weighed in on Dr Lugya’s reliance on international recommendations that encourage academics to take on outside professional work, ruling that such recommendations only apply where the outside work does not interfere with an employee’s primary job.
Justice Musana found that Dr Lugya breached his duties of fidelity and good faith by maintaining full-time employment at Makerere while bound by an exclusivity clause at Cavendish, and dismissed his discrimination claim for lack of evidence that he was treated differently over any protected characteristic.
The court ultimately ruled that Cavendish acted within its legal rights and followed due process, dismissing Dr Lugya’s claim in its entirety with no damages awarded.
