Kaddunabbi Ibrahim Lubega v Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application 423 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 171 · 2026 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for administrative interim order arising from miscellaneous application for temporary injunction

Decision

Administrative interim order granted preserving applicant's position pending hearing of main application

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 High Court granted an administrative interim order restraining the Insurance Regulatory Authority from implementing its decision declining to recommend the applicant for contract renewal as CEO. The court held that it has inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to preserve the status quo until hearing of the main application, and that the imminent expiry of the applicant's contract does not disentitle him to preservatory relief where he challenges the process by which renewal was refused.

Facts

The applicant was Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda. On 16 February 2026, the Authority's Board decided not to recommend him for contract renewal. His contract was due to expire on 31 May 2026. The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking interim orders to restrain implementation of the non-renewal decision. The respondents raised preliminary objections that the applicant suppressed material facts and that granting preservatory orders would effectively renew his contract, creating two CEOs since the Board had recommended appointment of an acting CEO. The respondents also argued that the contract would expire before the matter could be heard, rendering any order ineffective. The applicant sought an administrative order under the court's inherent powers to preserve the status quo pending hearing of the main application.

Issues

Whether there are grounds or compelling circumstances to warrant issue of an administrative order.
Whether preservatory orders would have the effect of renewing the applicant's contract.
Whether the court should grant an administrative order when the applicant's contract is about to expire.

Orders

Administrative order granted restraining the 1st respondent and its Board from executing, implementing, enforcing or giving effect to the decision dated 16/02/2026 declining to recommend the applicant for renewal of contract as CEO until hearing and final determination of MA-0423-2026.
Respondents directed to file affidavits in reply by 01/06/2026.
Matter to come up for hearing on 01/06/2026 at 10:00 am.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Administrative Orders — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act

The court has inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court, including administrative orders to preserve the status quo pending hearing of an application.

Civil Procedure — Administrative Orders — Imminent Expiry of Contract — Effect on Entitlement to Relief

The imminent expiry of an applicant's contract does not disentitle the applicant from seeking preservatory orders where the applicant challenges the process by which contract renewal was refused and the contract has not yet expired at the time of application.

Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Preservatory Orders — Effect of Preserving Status Quo

A preservatory order restraining implementation of an administrative decision declining contract renewal does not have the effect of renewing the contract or usurping the executive function of contract renewal, but merely preserves the status quo pending determination of the challenge to the decision-making process.

Legislation cited (5)

Civil Procedure Act s.98
Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 3(a)
Judicature Act Cap 16 s.38
Judicature Act Cap 16 s.42
Insurance Act s.21(3)

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.