Wakilii

Alternative Voices for Development v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 309 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 427 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental rights under Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 challenging exclusive concession agreement as violation of constitutional rights
Decision
Application dismissed. Concession agreement upheld as reasonable and in public interest. No relief granted to applicant.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 held that the application was competently brought under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, but dismissed the substantive claim. The court found that the exclusive concession agreement for a mass transit bus service on specific routes in Kampala did not violate constitutional rights to equality, freedom of expression, or freedom to practice a lawful trade under Articles 21, 29(1), and 40(2). The appropriate remedy was judicial review, not human rights enforcement. The concession was found reasonable and in the public interest.

Outcome

Application dismissed. Concession agreement upheld as reasonable and in public interest. No relief granted to applicant.

Facts

Alternative Voices for Development, a non-governmental organisation, challenged a 15-year exclusive concession agreement executed on 19 July 2021 between Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) and Metu Zhongtong Bus Company Limited. The agreement granted the 2nd respondent exclusive rights to manufacture, deploy 1,000 buses, and operate a mass transit bus service on specific routes in Kampala Capital City. The concession was awarded under the Public Private Partnership Act 2015 using the unsolicited proposal procurement method and was approved by the Solicitor General on the same day it was signed. The applicant claimed the exclusive arrangement violated constitutional rights to equality before the law, freedom of expression, and the right to practice a lawful trade or business. The applicant brought the matter under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, arguing it acted both on its own behalf and in the interest of a group of persons engaged or interested in the public transport sector.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competently before the High Court under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019.
  2. Whether the concession agreement between the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent granting the 2nd Respondent exclusive rights and obligations violates the rights protected under Articles 21, 29(1) and 40(2) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought in the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Jurisdiction — Competent Court under Article 50 and Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019
Under Article 50 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, the High Court Civil Division is a competent court with jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms, whether brought by an individual acting in their own right, on behalf of others, or in the public interest.
Constitutional Law — Public Interest Litigation — Locus Standi — Person Acting as Member of or in Interest of a Group
Section 3(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 permits a person or organisation to institute court proceedings on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name, as a member of or in the interest of a group or class of persons, in public interest, or as an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members. It is not necessary for the applicant to disclose the specific identity of each individual represented where the application is brought as a member of or in the interest of a group.
Human Rights — Misuse of Constitutional Remedy — Abuse of Process — When Judicial Review is Appropriate Remedy
The constitutional right of access to court under Article 50 for redress of human rights violations is not a general substitute for normal procedures for invoking judicial control of administrative action. Where an applicant's complaint concerns the lawfulness of a government procurement process or the execution of a contract under the Public Private Partnership Act, the appropriate remedy is by way of judicial review, not enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 50 and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019.
Constitutional Law — Equality and Non-Discrimination — Article 21 — Exclusive Concession Agreements
An exclusive concession agreement granted to a private party to operate a mass transit bus service on specific routes within a city does not violate the constitutional right to equality before the law under Article 21 where the agreement is limited in geographical scope and does not prohibit other persons from engaging in the transport business in other areas or on other routes, and where the applicant has not shown that they applied for and were denied the same concession.
Constitutional Law — Freedom to Practice Profession and Carry on Lawful Trade — Article 40(2) — Limitation by Exclusive Concession
The right to practice a profession and carry on a lawful trade or business under Article 40(2) of the Constitution is not violated by an exclusive concession agreement limited to specific routes and specific transport operations where other persons remain at liberty to engage in the same line of business in other regulated areas and where the concession is informed by public interest considerations.
Administrative Law — Exercise of Executive Discretion — Government Contracts — Test of Reasonableness and Public Interest
Every action of the executive government must be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Government cannot act arbitrarily, capriciously, or in an unprincipled manner. Government discretion in entering contracts must be dictated by public interest and cannot be arbitrary or fanciful. A governmental action that satisfies the test of reasonableness and public interest will not be struck down even if it confers exclusive rights on a private party, provided the decision is not discriminatory and serves the public good.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (8)

  • R v Bedfordshire 24 LJ.G.B 84
  • Aboneka Micheal & Centre for Constitutional Governance v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 367 of 2018)
  • The Environment Action Network Ltd v The AG and NEMA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2001)
  • Digitek Advertising Ltd v Corporate Dimensions Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 2005)
  • Prime Media Networks and Alliance Media (U) Ltd v UNRA and another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 164 of 2014 and No. 172 of 2014)
  • Harrikisson v Attorney-General (Trinidad and Tobago) [1980] AC 265
  • Ramana Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority [1979] AIR SC 1628: [1979] SCC 489
  • Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v State of Jammu & Kashimir [1980] AIR 1992; [1980] 4 SCC 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Alternative Voices for Development v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 309 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 427 (10 March 2023)
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.