Wakilii

His Worship Aggrey Bwire v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Appeal No. O9 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 57 · 2009 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court ruling dismissing an application for judicial review
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's refusal of judicial review of the appellant's interdiction upheld, with no order as to costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 a magistrate's appeal against the refusal of judicial review of his interdiction by the Judicial Service Commission. It held that Regulation 14(1) of SI 88 of 2005, fixing a three-member quorum for the Disciplinary Committee, is intra vires the Judicial Service Act, the Commission being empowered under section 27 to make regulations and to delegate hearings to the committee. Judicial review was not available where the proceedings disclosed no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety and a right of appeal existed. The court also upheld the striking out of a late supplementary affidavit and held that judicial immunity and independence did not protect the appellant from disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct.

Facts

The appellant, a Magistrate Grade I in charge of Nabweru court, was interdicted on 25 February 2008 by the Chief Registrar acting on the directive of the Judicial Service Commission. The Commission's Disciplinary Committee that dealt with the matter leading to his interdiction comprised three members. The appellant was charged with being untrustworthy and lacking integrity, abuse of judicial authority, and conduct prejudicial to the good image of the service, contrary to Regulation 23 of SI 88 of 2005. He attended the committee's hearings on diverse days, cross-examined witnesses, and adduced evidence, but never objected to the legality of the regulations or the competence of the committee. Aggrieved by the interdiction and the manner of the proceedings, he applied for judicial review in the High Court, which dismissed the application with costs. He was subsequently dismissed from service while the appeal was pending.

Issues

  1. Whether Regulation 14(1) of the Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations SI 88 of 2005, setting a quorum of three members for the Disciplinary Committee, is ultra vires and in contravention of section 9 of the Judicial Service Act.
  2. Whether the Disciplinary Committee that recommended the appellant's interdiction had the requisite quorum and composition.
  3. Whether judicial review was available to the appellant where a right of appeal existed and where he had not objected to the committee's composition during the proceedings.
  4. Whether the trial judge properly struck out the appellant's supplementary affidavit filed after the close of submissions.
  5. Whether the pleas of judicial immunity and judicial independence were available to the appellant in respect of his interdiction.

Orders

  • Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 dismissed as devoid of merit; Regulation 14 held intra vires the Judicial Service Act.
  • Grounds 5 and 6 dismissed.
  • Ground 7 dismissed (supplementary affidavit properly struck out).
  • Ground 8 disallowed.
  • Grounds 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 dismissed.
  • The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Subsidiary Legislation — Ultra Vires — Intra Vires Test
To determine whether a regulation is intra or ultra vires, the court must examine the nature, objects, and scheme of the parent Act as a whole and the area over which powers are conferred; subsidiary legislation made within the delegated mandate is valid even where it sets a procedural quorum.
Judicial Service Commission — Delegation of Disciplinary Functions — Quorum
The Judicial Service Commission, empowered by section 27 of the Judicial Service Act to make regulations and regulate its procedure, may validly delegate the hearing of complaints to its Disciplinary Committee, whose quorum of three members under Regulation 14(1) of SI 88 of 2005 is intra vires the Act.
Grounds for Judicial Review — Availability Where Right of Appeal Exists
Judicial review lies only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety; where the impugned proceedings disclose none of these and a right of appeal is available, an application for judicial review is superfluous and properly dismissed.
Affidavits — Supplementary Affidavit Filed Out of Time
A supplementary affidavit filed after the close of written submissions and raising new issues to which the opposing party had no opportunity to respond is properly ignored or struck out, as new matters cannot be raised after closure of pleadings except with leave of court.
Judicial Immunity and Independence — Limits in Disciplinary Proceedings
Judicial independence and immunity are not absolute personal privileges but responsibilities enabling impartial adjudication; a judicial officer who misconducts himself loses that protection and remains subject to disciplinary proceedings according to law.
Interdiction — Interim Disciplinary Measure
An interdiction is merely an interim disciplinary measure taken against an officer to pave the way for further inquiry pending the final determination of the complaint by the commission, and does not by itself constitute a final adverse decision.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Judicial Service Act s.9
  • Judicial Service Act s.27
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.2
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.12
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.13(2)
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.14(1)
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.17
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.18
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.19
  • Judicial Service (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 2005 (SI 88 of 2005) reg.23
  • Constitution of Uganda art.146
  • Constitution of Uganda art.147
  • Constitution of Uganda art.148

Cases cited (4)

  • Commission for Customs and Excise Vs. Cure and Deeley Ltd. (1962) 1 QB 342
  • Barnwell v. A.G of Guyana (1994) 3 LRC 30
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC. 374
  • R V Beauregard, Supreme Court of Canada, (1987) LRC (Const) 180
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.