Judicial review in Uganda
In brief
Judicial review challenges the legality of a public body's decision or process, not its merits. The recognised grounds are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. An application must be made promptly and in any event within three months of when the grounds arose, unless the court extends time.
1. Governing law
Judicial review lies against bodies exercising public functions, to ensure they act within their powers and fairly. It is supervisory: the court asks whether the decision was lawfully and fairly made, not whether it was the best decision. The procedure and the three-month time limit are set by the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 (as amended), made under the Judicature Act. Leave to apply is required.
2. Key statutes & rules
- Judicature Act — supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 (as amended) — r.5 (application promptly and within three months); leave; available orders.
3. Leading cases
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
Persuasive classification of the grounds of review as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others
Applies the three grounds of judicial review in the East African context. Confirm the report before citing in a filing.
4. Practical guidance
Confirm the decision is amenable to review (a public body / public function).
Identify which ground(s) fit — illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Move quickly: apply within three months and seek leave first.
Choose the appropriate remedy: certiorari (quash), prohibition (restrain), mandamus (compel), and any declaration or injunction.
Exhaust alternative remedies, or explain why they are inadequate.
This note is a practitioner orientation, not legal advice, and does not create an advocate–client relationship. Ugandan law changes and chapter and section numbers were revised in the 2023 Laws of Uganda. Verify every statute, rule and authority against the current primary source — and the specific facts of your matter — before filing or relying on it.