Ziwa Sanctuary UWA Wrongful Dismissal Lawsuit: 170 Former Staff Sue

• A group of 170 former Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary workers plans to sue Ziwa Rhino and Wildlife Ranch Limited and Uganda Wildlife Authority for wrongful dismissal.
• The lawsuit alleges constructive dismissal under the Employment Act, 2006, unremitted NSSF contributions, and substantial unpaid salary arrears.
• Former ranch manager David Krispo Bakeine claims he was forced to resign due to hostile working conditions, including unlawful arrest and harassment.
• Uganda Wildlife Authority is accused of misfeasance in public office, collusion in granting conflicting land user rights, and failing to implement a presidential directive.
• The legal action stems from an alleged unlawful acquisition of parallel land user rights that destabilized sanctuary operations and led to job losses.

This Ziwa Sanctuary UWA wrongful dismissal lawsuit underscores significant employment law risks for Ugandan employers.

A collective of 170 former employees from the Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary is preparing to initiate a lawsuit against Ziwa Rhino and Wildlife Ranch Limited (ZRSWRL) and the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), alleging wrongful dismissal. The group, spearheaded by David Krispo Bakeine, a former ranch manager, includes a range of specialized conservation personnel such as rhino rangers, trackers, veterinary assistants, and conservation educators. Their legal representatives, M/S Bwagi and Company Advocates, assert that Bakeine's employment contract, dated January 18, 2021, stipulated a monthly gross salary of Shs4 million.

However, during the initial six-month period, Bakeine reportedly received only a Shs100,000 monthly allowance, pending the resolution of administrative issues involving the Ranch, UWA, and Rhino Fund Uganda. The lawyers contend that before the full contractual salary could be disbursed, ZRSWRL management explicitly communicated, via electronic message and internal staff meetings, its intent to repudiate Clause 7 of the signed contract and refused to pay the agreed-upon sum. This refusal, coupled with Bakeine's unlawful arrest, incarceration, and contracting of typhoid due to hostile working conditions, alongside persistent administrative harassment, allegedly left him with no option but to resign under duress. This situation, according to the legal team, constitutes constructive dismissal under the Employment Act, 2006 (Cap 226). Following his departure, management reportedly declared Bakeine persona non grata, effectively blacklisting him across Uganda's rhino conservation sector and depriving him of his specialized livelihood.

Furthermore, the legal notice highlights that throughout Bakeine's tenure, Ziwa Rhino and Wildlife Ranch Limited allegedly failed to remit statutory contributions to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), a direct violation of the NSSF Act (Cap 222). The former employees are also seeking accumulated unpaid salary arrears, representing the difference between the Shs100,000 allowance received and the Shs4 million contractual salary per month. This Ziwa Sanctuary UWA wrongful dismissal lawsuit underscores significant employment law risks for Ugandan employers.

The genesis of the current dispute traces back to 2002 when Ziwa Ranchers Ltd leased land in Buruli, Nakasongola District, to Rhino Fund Uganda (RFU) for a 30-year term. However, in 2008, the directors of Ziwa Ranchers Limited established Ziwa Rhino and Wildlife Ranch Ltd (ZRSWRL), which then allegedly unlawfully acquired parallel user rights over the same land. The legal document asserts that ZRSWRL engaged in orchestrated hostility, physical blockades, security intimidation, and breached the 30-year lease, deliberately destabilizing sanctuary operations. These actions, it is claimed, directly led to the destruction of employment contracts and the livelihoods of over 170 specialized staff.

The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), acting as a public statutory trustee under the Uganda Wildlife Act 2019, faces accusations of severe misfeasance in public office, procedural impropriety, and bad faith. UWA is alleged to have deliberately disregarded executive directives, specifically failing to implement a binding Executive Directive issued by H.E. The President of the Republic of Uganda. This directive mandated the establishment of a nine-member National Rhino Management Committee to oversee national rhino conservation policy. The allegations against UWA also include collusion and unlawful user rights allocation, as it purportedly colluded with private entities—Ziwa Ranchers Limited and Ziwa Rhino and Wildlife Ranch Limited—to grant parallel and conflicting wildlife user rights.

Adding to the gravity of the claims, UWA is accused of deploying state-funded armed personnel at a private facility to intimidate legitimate conservation officers. These actions, the former workers contend, directly caused the collapse of Rhino Fund Uganda's sanctuary operations and the subsequent loss of over 170 specialized conservation jobs. This aspect of the Uganda Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary lawsuit highlights potential liabilities for public bodies like UWA for misfeasance in public office and procedural impropriety in managing public trusts and land use.

The impending legal action against Ziwa Rhino and Wildlife Ranch Limited and the Uganda Wildlife Authority carries significant implications for employment law and public administration in Uganda. The claims of constructive dismissal under the Employment Act, 2006 Uganda, coupled with allegations of NSSF Act Uganda Ziwa violations, underscore the critical importance of adhering to labor laws and statutory obligations for all employers, including those in the conservation sector. The case also brings into sharp focus the responsibilities of public bodies, with UWA facing serious accusations of Uganda Wildlife Authority misfeasance and collusion.

The lawsuit serves as a stark reminder of the potential legal ramifications for entities that allegedly disregard contractual agreements, engage in harassment, or fail to uphold their statutory duties. The allegations surrounding the Rhino Fund Uganda dispute and the unlawful acquisition of parallel user rights highlight the complexities and potential for conflict in land use and conservation efforts. This case could establish a significant precedent, influencing how similar disputes involving conservation entities are handled in the future and reinforcing the need for transparent and lawful conduct by both private and public actors in Uganda.

This case highlights significant employment law risks for Ugandan employers, particularly concerning wrongful and constructive dismissal claims under the Employment Act, 2006, and non-compliance with NSSF Act obligations. It also underscores potential liabilities for public bodies like UWA for misfeasance in public office and procedural impropriety in managing public trusts and land use, serving as a precedent for similar disputes involving conservation entities.

Source: Original reporting via news reports