Court upholds sh1.37b award to 18 Mulago health graduates
In a judgment arising from consolidated Civil Appeals 145 and 099 of 2017, Justices Margaret Tibulya, Asa Mugenyi and Musa Ssekaana dismissed appeals by Makerere University and the institute’s governing council, except on the interest rate.
Court upholds sh1.37b award to 18 Mulago health graduates
_______________
The Court of Appeal has upheld an award of sh75m in general damages to each of 18 former students of the Institute of Allied Health and Management Sciences, Mulago, over the prolonged delay in issuing their academic certificates and transcripts.
However, the court reduced the interest rate on the damages from 30% to the prevailing court rate, ruling that the higher rate had no established legal or evidential basis.
In a judgment arising from consolidated Civil Appeals 145 and 099 of 2017, Justices Margaret Tibulya, Asa Mugenyi and Musa Ssekaana dismissed appeals by Makerere University and the institute’s governing council, except on the interest rate.
The court also upheld a total award of sh20m in aggravated damages and ordered the appellants to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal and those incurred in the High Court.
In the lead judgment, Justice Tibulya said the former students had suffered hardship, inconvenience, anxiety and difficulties in pursuing employment opportunities during the six to seven years they were denied their academic documents.
The students were admitted to courses at the institute during the 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 academic years through the Joint Medical Examinations Board of the Ministry of Education.
They completed their studies and graduated in 2008 and 2009 but received testimonials instead of their academic certificates and transcripts.
After unsuccessfully pursuing the documents for about three years, the students sued Makerere University and the institute. They sought declarations that withholding their qualifications was unlawful, orders compelling the release of their academic documents, general damages, aggravated or punitive damages, interest and costs.
In 2015, the parties reached a partial settlement through court-assisted mediation presided over by the then Principal Judge, Justice Yorokamu Bamwine.
Under the consent judgment, Makerere agreed to consider the students’ results and award certificates or diplomas to those who met its admission requirements. The institute undertook to submit the necessary information to facilitate the process.
The remaining dispute over damages, costs and interest was referred to the trial judge for determination.
Makerere and the institute subsequently appealed against the findings on liability, the damages awarded and the interest rate.
Dismissing the challenges to liability, Justice Tibulya said both institutions had contributed to the prolonged delay in issuing the academic documents.
Makerere argued that the government’s handling of the affiliation arrangement and the institute’s failure to submit the students’ results in time had caused the delay.
The university also contended that it was not obliged to issue the awards because the affiliation arrangement had not been completed.
The institute, meanwhile, maintained that it had provided the required training, issued testimonials and forwarded the students’ results to Makerere, which was responsible for awarding the certificates.
Justice Tibulya said the evidence showed that neither institution had taken sufficient steps to ensure the students received their academic qualifications within a reasonable time.
She noted that Makerere had made no meaningful effort to obtain the results for six to seven years, apart from a 2011 letter to the Ministry of Education indicating that the results had not been received.
The judge also referred to the institute’s undertaking in the 2015 mediation agreement to submit the necessary information to Makerere to enable consideration of the students’ awards.
She said the undertaking demonstrated the institute’s role in the process leading to the issuance of the certificates.
The court further noted that students who had not sued the institutions received their certificates, while those who had instituted legal proceedings remained without theirs.
The institute challenged the award of sh75m to each student, arguing that the amount was excessive and that the students had not proved actual financial losses.
It also argued that some students had used their testimonials to secure employment or pursue further studies, and that the trial judge should not have awarded an identical amount to all the respondents.
Justice Tibulya rejected the arguments, stating that the claim was for general damages arising from the prolonged failure to issue academic documents.
She said the subsequent release of the certificates under the consent judgment did not erase the hardship and inconvenience the students had experienced during the years they were without them.
The judge added that the fact that some students had secured employment or pursued further studies using their testimonials did not remove the injury arising from the delay.
She also upheld the identical general damages awards, noting that all 18 respondents had experienced the same category of deprivation and related difficulties.
On aggravated damages, the court upheld the total award of sh20m, citing the prolonged withholding of the academic documents and the issuance of certificates to other students while the respondents remained without theirs.
Justice Tibulya said the trial judge had identified circumstances supporting the award and that the appellants had not demonstrated an error in principle warranting interference with the amount.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not provided a contractual, commercial or other evidential basis for imposing interest at 30% per annum.
Justice Tibulya said the respondents had also conceded that the rate was excessively high and could be revised.
The court therefore set aside the 30% rate and substituted it with interest at the prevailing court rate on the general and aggravated damages awards, running from the date of the High Court judgment until payment in full.
The court dismissed the remaining grounds of appeal and awarded the respondents the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the High Court.