A former employee has lost a labour dispute against a Kampala-based company after the Industrial Court dismissed her claims for more than UGX 68 million in alleged salary arrears and other employment benefits.
In a judgment delivered in Kampala on May 29, 2026, the court rejected Anyait’s case, ruling that she had failed to prove that she earned the UGX 2.5 million monthly salary she claimed.
A former employee of sign care limited, Suzan Anyait, has lost a labour dispute against the company after the Industrial Court dismissed her claims for more than UGX 68 million in alleged salary arrears and other employment benefits.
In a judgment delivered in Kampala on May 29, 2026, the court rejected Anyait’s case, ruling that she had failed to prove that she earned the UGX 2.5 million monthly salary she claimed.
Anyait told the court that she worked for Sign care limited between 2005 and 2019, initially as a Customer Care Manager before later serving in a managerial role. She claimed that although her official payroll records reflected a lower salary, her actual pay had risen to UGX 2.5 million per month by 2016.
She accused the company of failing to fully pay her wages from 2014 onward, leaving salary arrears amounting to UGX 68.2 million. She further alleged that the company’s directors abandoned the business in 2018 due to financial difficulties, forcing her to continue managing operations.
According to her testimony, she eventually stopped working in 2019 after being told to continue working without pay.
Anyait also sought compensation for unremitted National Social Security Fund (NSSF) deductions, severance pay, repatriation allowance, general damages and interest.
During the hearing, she presented an identity card and several company documents bearing her signature as a manager to support her claim that she held a senior position in the company.
She also admitted under cross-examination that payroll records showing a salary of UGX 425,000 were intentionally prepared to reduce PAYE tax and NSSF obligations.
Sign care limited, however, denied her claims and maintained that she was only a Customer Care Assistant earning UGX 425,000 per month.
Olwa Leo Charles, a director of the company who testified on behalf of the respondent, told court that Anyait never held a managerial position and accused her of diverting company clients to her own business before absconding from work during a restructuring exercise in 2019.
He further stated that documents showing larger payments to Anyait reflected commissions, allowances and salary advances rather than a higher basic salary.
Under cross-examination, Charles admitted that Anyait sometimes received payments far above the official payroll figures and acknowledged that NSSF remittances had been inconsistent because of financial constraints.
In its ruling, the Industrial Court held that claims for salary arrears must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through documentary evidence such as contracts, pay slips or bank records.
The court found that Anyait’s own signed payroll records consistently reflected a salary of UGX 425,000 between 2015 and 2018, making it difficult for the court to accept her claim that she actually earned UGX 2.5 million.
The judges further faulted Anyait’s argument that the lower payroll figures were part of a scheme to evade tax obligations, saying courts could not sanction arrangements intended to defeat tax laws.
Citing legal principles against benefiting from illegal conduct, the court ruled that the claimant approached the court with “unclean hands” and could not rely on documents she admitted were part of a tax avoidance arrangement.
The court therefore dismissed all her claims, including demands for salary arrears, damages and NSSF-related compensation.
In the final orders, the Industrial Court dismissed the suit without awarding costs to either party.
n Kampala on May 29, 2026, the court rejected the claimant’s case, ruling that she had failed to prove that she earned the UGX 2.5 million monthly salary she claimed.
The woman had told the court that she worked for the company between 2005 and 2019, initially as a Customer Care Manager before later serving in a managerial role. She claimed that although her official payroll records reflected a lower salary, her actual pay had risen to UGX 2.5 million per month by 2016.
She accused the company of failing to fully pay her wages from 2014 onward, leaving salary arrears amounting to UGX 68.2 million. She further alleged that the company’s directors abandoned the business in 2018 due to financial difficulties, forcing her to continue managing operations.
According to her testimony, she eventually stopped working in 2019 after being told to continue working without pay.
The claimant also sought compensation for unremitted National Social Security Fund (NSSF) deductions, severance pay, repatriation allowance, general damages and interest.
During the hearing, she presented an identity card and several company documents bearing her signature as a manager to support her claim that she held a senior position in the company.
She also admitted under cross-examination that payroll records showing a salary of UGX 425,000 were intentionally prepared to reduce PAYE tax and NSSF obligations.
The company, however, denied her claims and maintained that she was only a Customer Care Assistant earning UGX 425,000 per month.
A director of the company, who testified on behalf of the respondent, told court that the claimant never held a managerial position and accused her of diverting company clients to her own business before absconding from work during a restructuring exercise in 2019.
He further stated that documents showing larger payments to the claimant reflected commissions, allowances and salary advances rather than a higher basic salary.
Under cross-examination, the company director admitted that the claimant sometimes received payments far above the official payroll figures and acknowledged that NSSF remittances had been inconsistent because of financial constraints.
In its ruling, the Industrial Court held that claims for salary arrears must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through documentary evidence such as contracts, pay slips or bank records.
The court found that the claimant’s own signed payroll records consistently reflected a salary of UGX 425,000 between 2015 and 2018, making it difficult for the court to accept her claim that she actually earned UGX 2.5 million.
The judges further faulted the claimant’s argument that the lower payroll figures were part of a scheme to evade tax obligations, saying courts could not sanction arrangements intended to defeat tax laws.
Citing legal principles against benefiting from illegal conduct, the court ruled that the claimant approached the court with “unclean hands” and could not rely on documents she admitted were part of a tax avoidance arrangement.
The court therefore dismissed all her claims, including demands for salary arrears, damages and NSSF-related compensation.
In the final orders, the Industrial Court dismissed the suit without awarding costs to either party.
English 