The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application by former TotalEnergies EP Uganda Ltd executive, Amos Mwase (pictured), who sought to overturn his dismissal through judicial review, ruling that the dispute arose from a private employment relationship and that he had bypassed internal and statutory remedies.
Mwase, formerly Deputy Director of Health, Safety, Security and Environment (HSSE), was dismissed on 22 December 2025 following allegations of sexual harassment made by his subordinate, Process Safety Engineer Ms. Jean Gift Kisakye.
On 20 February 2026, he moved to the High Court under sections 37, 40 and 42 of the Judicature Act and the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, seeking orders of certiorari, mandamus, declarations, and general damages.
He asked the court to quash the decision dismissing him, compel TotalEnergies to reinstate him to his position as Deputy Director HSSE, declare the termination illegal, irrational and procedurally improper, and award him damages. In his affidavit, Mwase said he had served the company for thirteen years, rising to Deputy Director HSSE in 2023, and that his service record had been exemplary.
He recounted that on 20 October 2025 he chaired a performance appraisal meeting for Ms. Kisakye, also attended by HSSE Director Mr. Jean Milcent and Risk Manager Ms. Miaora Stroe. The appraisal, he said, became contentious due to disagreements over performance gaps, and “ended abruptly” amid animosity.
Afterwards, he alleged, he met Ms. Kisakye in the office corridors where she told him, “I will get all of you for this.” Mwase stated that while he was on annual leave, further appraisal meetings on 30 October and 4 November 2025 were held in his absence.
On 12 November 2025, he received an ethics alert from the company’s Ethics Alerts Investigation Committee, indicating that an alert had been filed by a team member and requiring him to respond.
He was later invited to a physical meeting on 18 November 2025 attended by senior management, including the Head of Legal, Human Resource Director, Finance Director, and Compliance Officer. At that meeting, he was informed of two complaints by Ms. Kisakye: sexual harassment contrary to TotalEnergies’ code of conduct and policies, and disclosure of her confidential medical records plus harassment arising from the alleged taking of her phone by his Director in his presence.
By letter dated 28 November 2025, the Human Resource Director told him that the sexual harassment complaint had been filed in June 2025, though this had not previously been brought to his attention, and invited him to a disciplinary hearing set for 9 December 2025. He submitted a written response on 2 December and on 4 December received “Communication 1”, containing alleged WhatsApp messages between him and Ms. Kisakye. Mwase appeared before the disciplinary committee on 9 December 2025. He stated that the committee, chaired by Lamin Sabally and including representatives from Human Resources and Ethics as well as a committee nominee, sat with external counsel from S&L Advocates present for the company. He contended that the hearing was convened about six months after the complaint was allegedly lodged, contrary to the disciplinary code which required serious misconduct capable of termination to be reported within five days. He further alleged that the chairperson said the committee had sufficient evidence to establish his guilt and would hear from him “before convicting him”, which he argued demonstrated bias and predetermination.
Mwase said he obtained call logs from MTN Uganda which, in his view, showed “two-way communication” with Ms. Kisakye did not support harassment. He claimed the committee disregarded this evidence. He was subsequently suspended and later informed by the HSSE Director on 16 December 2025 that the company intended to terminate his employment before the committee issued its final decision.
On 22 December 2025, he received a notice of dismissal and was required to begin the departure process. He argued that the decision, delivered thirteen days after the hearing, breached the five‑day timeline in the disciplinary code. He appealed the dismissal by letter dated 24 December 2025, alleging violations of fair hearing, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
The company acknowledged the appeal on 5 January 2026 and undertook to constitute an appeals committee. Mwase then served a notice of intention to sue on 2 February 2026, demanding reinstatement and compensation for wrongful termination, defamation, mental anguish and psychological distress. Although the company scheduled an appeal for 11 February 2026, Mwase declined to attend, saying the appeal was intended to “sanitise a process he considered illegal, irrational and procedurally improper.” In reply, TotalEnergies, through an affidavit by Human Resources Director Ms. Christine Sekyana, denied the allegations and described the application as lacking merit, brought in bad faith, disclosing no proper grounds for judicial review and constituting an abuse of court process. The company argued that the dispute concerned alleged unfair dismissal from private employment and was therefore remediable before a Labour Officer or the Industrial Court under the Employment Act, and not amenable to judicial review.
On the facts, the company said its Ethics Officer received a complaint from Ms. Kisakye on 31 October 2025 alleging that Mwase had sexually harassed her between June 2024 and June 2025 despite repeated objections, and that she had reported the matter to Human Resources in June 2025 but had initially declined to escalate it.
After the ethics alert, she was asked to provide supporting material, including call logs, Microsoft Teams extracts and WhatsApp messages. Mwase was then invited to an in-camera ethics alert assessment session on 18 November 2025 where he was informed of the complaint and heard.
The company said the Ethics Alert Assessment Committee conducted only a preliminary admissibility review before the matter was referred to the Integrity Committee, which validated the recommendation for a formal disciplinary hearing. It insisted the disciplinary hearing was fair, that Mwase appeared with two Advocates, read his written response, made oral submissions, confirmed he had submitted all his evidence and did not require additional time. The company denied ignoring the call logs, stating that the committee requested them but Mwase declined to provide them, saying they contained information on other persons.
TotalEnergies further maintained that Mwase had been duly informed of his right of appeal, which he exercised, and that the appeal hearing was fixed for 11 February 2026 before an independent committee offered him an adequate avenue to contest any alleged unfairness.
In his rejoinder, Mwase insisted his application was truthful, accurate and brought in good faith. He denied the dispute was purely private law, arguing that the disciplinary committee exercised “quasi‑judicial functions amenable to judicial review” and that his dismissal was predetermined, the appeal a mere attempt to sanitise an unlawful decision, and that he had not been given key documents such as a detailed written complaint and investigation reports.
However, Justice Bernard Namanya agreed with the company’s preliminary objections. He held that Mwase had not shown that TotalEnergies, in dismissing him, was exercising any public-law power.
“The applicant placed no evidence before Court to show that, in dismissing him, the respondent was exercising a public function, governmental power, or authority with public law consequences,” the judge said. “The impugned decision arose from a private employment relationship governed by contract and the applicable labour law framework. I therefore find that the respondent’s decision is not amenable to judicial review.”
The court also faulted Mwase for invoking judicial review before exhausting available remedies. Justice Namanya noted that Mwase lodged an internal appeal but “declined to attend its hearing,” and further bypassed the statutory framework that required him to first present his grievance to a Labour Officer and, if necessary, to the Industrial Court.
“From the foregoing analysis, the preliminary objections are well founded and are upheld,” the judge concluded. The application, he held, “fails the threshold requirements for judicial review under rule 7A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules.” Having upheld the objections, the court found it unnecessary to address the merits of the dismissal and accordingly dismissed the application, with costs to TotalEnergies EP Uganda Ltd.
