Thirteen former employees of Entebbe Handling Services Limited (ENHAS) have taken legal action against the company, seeking payment of over 3.7 billion Ugandan shillings in unpaid salary and benefits. These former employees allege that they were unlawfully terminated from their positions and are entitled to compensation until reaching the retirement age of 55 years.
The employees who filed the case include Robert Luyimbazi, Yofes Atobua Dragudi, Sostene Echodu, Nelson Adriiko, Edwin Epeduno, John Robert Okwii, Moses Bayo, Emmanuel Engabwa, Fred Wasirwa, Christopher Oworinawe, Alex Ronald Bigirwa, Akim Butele, and Yuda Sekyanzi. They lodged their complaint with the Industrial Court on April 3, 2024, through legal representation by Bwanika and Company Advocates.
According to court documents, these individuals served as permanent employees of ENHAS, working as handling agents between 2002 and 2019. During their tenure, they earned salaries ranging from 772,505 to 1.2 million Ugandan shillings.
The claimants argue that their termination from employment by ENHAS was wrongful, unfair, and contrary to the Employment Act of 2006. They also allege that they suffered injuries during operational incidents but were not adequately compensated, in violation of the Workers Compensation Act.
The employees recount that in July 2023, ENHAS officials informed them that the company’s business with the United Nations Monusco had ceased. Despite promises of relocation programs for affected staff, they were shocked to receive termination letters on August 29, 2023. ENHAS cited the loss of revenue due to the end of the UN Monusco business as grounds for the terminations, claiming it necessitated measures to sustain the company’s operations.
The former employees contend that the termination was unjustified and are seeking compensation for the period from their dismissal until their retirement age. They maintain that they were entitled to fair treatment and proper compensation in accordance with Ugandan labor laws.
Both parties will present their arguments and evidence as the case unfolds in the Industrial Court.
