Wakilii

In the Matter of an Application for orders of certiorari, prohibition and Injuction by Mustapha Ramathan (Civil Appeal 25 of 1996)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 38 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the High Court's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review (orders of certiorari, prohibition and injunction)
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court's refusal of leave to apply for certiorari, prohibition and injunction. The application for certiorari was time barred under section 34(6) of the Judicature Act 1967, having been brought more than six months after the Minister's repossession order; absent evidence of when the decision was communicated, time ran from the date of the order. Prerogative writs were misconceived because an alternative statutory remedy of appeal existed under section 14 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The court has discretion to refer constitutional questions under Article 137(5) but is only obliged to do so on a party's request, and none was made.

Facts

The appellant purchased the suit property for value from the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board, which had become registered proprietor after the expulsion of the former owner, an Asian national. The appellant was registered as proprietor on 8 November 1974. Following the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, the former owner successfully claimed the property. The Minister of Finance issued a repossession order on 16 October 1995, and the former owner was registered by the Chief Registrar of Titles on 3 November 1995. The appellant, who had spent money maintaining and improving the property without compensation, sought leave on 25 April 1996 to apply for certiorari to quash the repossession order, prohibition against the Chief Registrar and the former owner, and a temporary injunction. The High Court refused leave on grounds of limitation, availability of a statutory remedy, and that the act complained of was complete. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to apply for certiorari was time barred under section 34(6) of the Judicature Act 1967 for being brought more than six months after the Minister's order.
  2. Whether time ran from the date of the Minister's repossession order or from the date the decision was communicated to the appellant.
  3. Whether prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition could issue where an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal existed under section 14 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
  4. Whether the trial Judge erred in failing to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs as no respondent appeared.

Key headnotes

Certiorari — Time Limitation — Six-month period under Judicature Act s.34(6)
An application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari must be made not later than six months after the date of the proceedings sought to be quashed; where it is brought after that period it is time barred and leave must be refused.
Certiorari — Computation of Time — Date of order versus date of communication
Where there is no evidence of when the impugned decision was communicated to the applicant, time for applying for certiorari runs from the date of the order or decision itself.
Limitation — Strict and inflexible nature of limitation statutes
Statutes of limitation are strict and inflexible enactments unconcerned with the merits; once the limitation period expires, a party entitled to its benefit may insist on its strict application irrespective of the particular case.
Prerogative Writs — Alternative statutory remedy — Exhaustion of appeal
Prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition will not ordinarily issue where an aggrieved person has an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal which has not been exhausted.
Constitutional Reference — Discretion under Article 137(5)
A court has discretion to refer a substantial question of constitutional interpretation to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5)(a), but is only bound to make a reference where a party to the proceedings requests it.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Judicature Act 1967 s.34
  • Judicature Act 1967 s.34(5)
  • Judicature Act 1967 s.34(6)
  • Judicature Act 1967 s.35
  • Judicature Act 1967 s.36
  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.38(4)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.1(2)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.6(a)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.14
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137(5)
  • Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Rules of Court) Rules SI 74-1 rule 3
  • Fatal Accidents Act 1846 s.3
  • Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Cases cited (2)

  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 61
  • Ingal v Moran
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.