Wakilii

The Managing Director National Social Security Fund and 196 Others (Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 223 · 2022 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated civil appeals from a High Court judicial review decision and a High Court conditional stay of execution ruling
Decision
Both consolidated appeals determined in favour of NSSF; High Court judicial review orders set aside and UTL's judicial review application dismissed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 allowed both consolidated appeals. It held that the trial Judge breached the right to a fair hearing by reading a ruling without hearing the parties after adjourning the matter for hearing, rendering the resulting orders unsustainable. It further held that Uganda Telecom Ltd's application was wrongly instituted as judicial review because, in substance, it challenged the correctness of NSSF's decision to collect statutory contributions, which falls outside the supervisory scope of judicial review. The application also offended section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, as a prior suit on the same subject matter was pending in the Industrial Court. The High Court judicial review orders were set aside and the application dismissed.

Facts

Uganda Telecom Limited (UTL), successor to the Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation, employed staff in respect of whom NSSF collected statutory contributions under the NSSF Act, amounting to at least UGX 14,239,357,797 for over 900 employees. UTL contended the relevant employees were exempted from making contributions and sought a refund. After NSSF declined despite the Solicitor General's involvement, UTL filed judicial review proceedings (Misc. Cause No. 68 of 2015) seeking declarations, injunctions, mandamus and a clearance certificate. The High Court (Mugambe J.) allowed the application and ordered a refund with interest. Separately, in execution proceedings, Muhanguzi J. read a ruling on a garnishee-related application (Misc. Application No. 786 of 2017) without hearing the parties despite having adjourned the matter for hearing. NSSF appealed the judicial review decision, and UTL appealed the execution ruling. The two appeals were consolidated, and UTL employees were joined as interested parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge in Misc. Application No. 786 of 2017 erred by determining the application without hearing the parties, thereby breaching the right to a fair hearing.
  2. Whether Miscellaneous Cause No. 68 of 2015 was a proper case for judicial review.
  3. Whether the judicial review application was an abuse of court process given a prior suit on the same subject matter pending in the Industrial Court.

Orders

  • Ground 1 in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2018 succeeds.
  • Ground 3 in Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2016 succeeds.
  • Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2016 allowed.
  • Ruling and orders of the High Court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 68 of 2015 set aside and substituted with an order dismissing UTL's application for judicial review.
  • Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2018 dismissed.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs here and in the Court below.

Key headnotes

Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing — Failure to Hear Parties Before Ruling
Where a court adjourns a contested application for hearing, it breaches the right to a fair hearing if it subsequently reads a prepared ruling without affording the parties an opportunity to present arguments, and orders arising from such proceedings cannot be sustained.
Fair Hearing — Submissions as Part of Hearing
Although submissions are not evidence, failure to allow parties to make submissions can occasion a miscarriage of justice, since it is at the submissions stage that counsel apply the law to the facts; denying parties that opportunity is procedurally wrong.
Scope of Judicial Review — Process Not Merits
Judicial review is concerned with the legality, rationality and procedural propriety of the decision-making process, not the correctness of the decision; a dispute that in substance challenges the correctness of a decision and requires interpretation of statute is not amenable to judicial review.
Stay of Proceedings — Pending Prior Suit — Section 6 Civil Procedure Act
Under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a matter in issue is directly or substantially in issue in a previously instituted and pending suit between the same parties in a court of competent jurisdiction, a later suit (including a judicial review application, which is a civil proceeding) on the same subject matter ought to be stayed.
Concurrent Jurisdiction — Industrial Court and High Court
The Industrial Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court; accordingly the High Court ought not to undermine or disregard orders of the Industrial Court when a related matter is already pending before it.

Legislation cited (11)

  • NSSF Act s.7(5)
  • NSSF Act s.7(6)
  • NSSF Act First Schedule Item 7
  • Civil Procedure Act s.6
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2(x)
  • Uganda Communications Act, Cap. 106 s.82(1)
  • Companies Act, Cap. 110
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.3(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)(a)

Cases cited (14)

  • Pandya V.R [1957] EA 336
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Kenneth Stanley Diatiba v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1994)
  • Rebecca Nagidde v Charles Steven Mwasa (Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2014)
  • Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi and Anor. V. Mwangi Stephen Muriithi and Anor. eKLR [2014]
  • Attorney General v Justus Tinkasiimire (Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
  • Kabagambe Asol and 2 Others v Electoral Commission and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Uganda Land Commission and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2010)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Justice Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2016)
  • R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682
  • Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Attorney General v General Sejusor (Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2016)
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.