Wakilii

Arop v Amuru District Local Government (Civil Application No. 165 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 82 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of decision not to swear in elected councillor
Decision
Applicant to be sworn in as male councillor for workers within one month of release from custody; awarded damages of UGX 3,000,000

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 High Court held that the respondent's refusal to swear in an elected councillor was illegal and procedurally improper where the Chief Administrative Officer took into account irrelevant considerations (the applicant's alleged failure to resign) after the statutory period for challenging the election had expired unchallenged. The court granted mandamus directing the respondent to swear in the applicant and awarded general damages of UGX 3,000,000 for misfeasance in public office.

Outcome

Applicant to be sworn in as male councillor for workers within one month of release from custody; awarded damages of UGX 3,000,000

Facts

The applicant was employed by Amuru District Local Government as an askari at Pogo Health Centre III. On 29 May 2018, he won election at an electoral college to serve as male councillor representing workers on the District Council. His name was published in the Gazette on 17 July 2018 and no election petition was filed within the statutory 14-day period. On 6 August 2018, the Chief Administrative Officer wrote alleging the applicant had not resigned before the election and should face disciplinary proceedings. On 20 August 2018, the successful female councillor was sworn in but the applicant was never invited. He received no salary after June 2018. The respondent contended the application was time-barred and that it was the Speaker's duty, not the CAO's, to swear in councillors.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was barred by limitation under rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.
  2. Whether the respondent's failure or refusal to swear in the applicant as male councillor representing workers was illegal.
  3. Whether there was procedural impropriety in the respondent's failure or refusal to swear in the applicant.
  4. Whether the applicant was entitled to the relief sought, including mandamus and damages.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Order of mandamus directing the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer to swear in the applicant as the male Councillor for workers of the respondent's Council, within one month from the date of his release from custody.
  • General damages of UGX 3,000,000 awarded.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Limitation Period — Accrual of Cause of Action
In judicial review, where operative facts comprise a series of acts or events, the cause of action accrues upon the last act in the series of violations, not when each individual act occurs. Where an applicant's cause of action arose from a letter, failure to fix a swearing-in date, and the swearing in of a counterpart, the limitation period runs from the date of the last act that crystallised the inaction.
Judicial Review — Illegality — Irrelevant Considerations in Exercise of Discretion
Where an authority exercises discretion by taking into account considerations which the courts consider not to be proper, it has not exercised its discretion legally. An elected councillor's alleged failure to resign before nomination can only be grounds for an election petition under section 139(d) of the Local Governments Act. Once the statutory period for challenging an election has expired without petition, that consideration becomes irrelevant for purposes of swearing in the successful candidate.
Judicial Review — Statutory Duties — Ministerial vs Discretionary Powers
Regulation 2(1) of the Local Government Councils Regulations creates a ministerial duty, not a discretionary power, imposed on the Chief Administrative Officer to administer an oath of office to a successful councillor before taking office. Where the duty is ministerial, judicial review extends to situations of a public authority's failure to act, and inaction that deprives a citizen of a legal entitlement gives rise to a cause of action.
Judicial Review — Procedural Impropriety — Duty to Give Reasons
Fairness requires that an administrator give reasons where a decision adversely affects someone, particularly where the decision appears inconsistent with treatment of others in similar circumstances. Direct discrimination by treating one person less favourably than others without explanation constitutes procedural impropriety where the unfavourable treatment affects the person's reputation in a matter of importance.
Judicial Review Remedies — Appropriateness of Particular Remedies
A quashing order (certiorari) will not lie unless something has been done that a court can quash; where the grievance is founded on inaction, certiorari is inappropriate. Similarly, prohibition and injunction are inappropriate where no act done in excess of jurisdiction exists. Where inaction is illegal and procedurally improper and no alternative remedy exists, mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel performance of a statutory duty.
Judicial Review — Damages for Misfeasance in Public Office
Under rule 8(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, damages may be awarded in judicial review where the applicant establishes a cause of action in private law. For misfeasance in public office, the claimant must show the public officer performed or omitted to perform an act with the object of injuring the claimant, and that the officer knew or should reasonably have known the claimant would suffer loss as a result.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (28)

  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • In Re Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
  • Re An Application by Gideon Waweru Gathunguri [1962] EA 520
  • Masaka District Growers Co-operative Union v Mumpiwakoma Growers Co-operative Society Ltd [1968] EA 258
  • Thorne v University of London [1966] 2 All ER 338
  • Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] 2 All ER 1106
  • M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377
  • R v North Yorkshire CC Ex p M [1989] QB 411
  • R v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC Ex p Hammell [1989] 1 QB 518
  • Attorney General v Staffordshire CC [1905] 1 Ch 336
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2
  • An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner (1978) AIR 851
  • Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993] 3 All ER 92
  • R v Aston University Senate Ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health Ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal Ex p Caswell [1990] 2 AC 738
  • R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission Ex p Argyll [1986] 1 WLR 763
  • Coney v Choyce [1975] 1 WLR 422
  • R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers Ex p Guinness Plc [1990] 1 QB 146
  • R v Governors of Small Heath School Ex p Birmingham CC [1990] COD 23
  • Bradbury v Enfield LBC [1967] 1 WLR 1311
  • Cinnamond v British Airports Authority [1980] 1 WLR 582
  • R (Jones) v Swansea City and County Council [2007] All ER (D) 191
  • Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1
  • T v Surrey County Council [1994] 4 All ER 577
  • State (Modern Homes Ltd) v Dublin Corporation [1953] IR 202

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Arop Vs Amuru District Local Government (Civil Application No. 165 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 82 (1 April 2019)
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.