Wakilii

Amollo Rose and Another v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Cause 303 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 91 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of dismissal from employment by public university
Decision
Application dismissed for prematurity — applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies

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

Held that the application for judicial review was premature because the applicants failed to exhaust available internal remedies and statutory appeal mechanisms before approaching the High Court. Under Rule 7A(1)(b) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 and Section 57 of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001, applicants must first appeal to the University Staff Tribunal before seeking judicial review. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort available only after exhausting alternative remedies. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for prematurity — applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies

Facts

The applicants, employed by Kyambogo University for 17 and 26 years respectively as secretary and receptionist, were dismissed on 31 August 2023 by the University Council for gross misconduct. The dismissal followed allegations that they forged academic documents for one Nafula Judith, who allegedly paid them UGX 350,000. A whistleblower from the National Council for Higher Education reported the forgery in October 2021. The Academic Registrar investigated and Ms. Nafula Judith stated she received the certificate from Innocent Kisambira with the applicants' assistance. The matter was referred to the Appointments Board Disciplinary Committee, which heard evidence including telecommunication logs contradicting the applicants' denial of knowledge of Ms. Nafula. The applicants were charged under the University's Human Resource Manual and dismissed. They filed for judicial review seeking certiorari, mandamus, reinstatement, and damages, alleging procedural impropriety and bias.

Issues

  1. Whether this application is amenable to judicial review

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Prematurity
An application for judicial review is premature where the applicant has not exhausted existing remedies available within the public body or under the law. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort and can only be invoked after all statutory appeal mechanisms have been pursued.
Administrative Law — University Disciplinary Proceedings — Right of Appeal — Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act
Under Section 57(1) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001, a member of university staff aggrieved by a decision of the appointments board may appeal to the University Staff Tribunal within 14 days. Section 57(3) provides that only after the Tribunal's decision may the staff member apply to the High Court for judicial review within 30 days. Judicial review cannot be invoked before the Tribunal has determined the appeal.
Judicial Review — Scope — Private Rights — Reinstatement and Benefits
The court's mandate under judicial review does not extend to determining private rights such as reinstatement and payment of employment benefits. Judicial review is concerned with the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of administrative decisions, not with enforcing private contractual or employment entitlements.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (4)

  • Council of Civil Service Unions & Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Uganda Association of Consulting Engineers v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 182 of 2024)
  • Byrahunga John Patrick v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 235 of 2024)
  • Sewanyana Jimmy v Kampala International University (HCMC No. 207 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amollo Rose and Another v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Cause 303 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 91 (26 March 2026)
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.