Attorney General v East Africa Gold Sniffing Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2013)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General's appeal, upholding a preliminary objection. The grounds of appeal all challenged the trial judge's finding that Hima Cement Ltd was a non-existent entity without locus standi to request administrative review under section 118 of the Mining Act. The court held that only the aggrieved party (Hima Cement Ltd) could appeal that finding, but it had not appealed. The Attorney General, as legal representative of Government under the Government Proceedings Act and Constitution, could not be aggrieved by a Commissioner's decision, could not represent the Minister (who was the adjudicator) or the Commissioner, and had no capacity to represent private companies. The appeal therefore had no merit.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision upheld with costs against the appellant

Facts

The respondent, East African Gold Sniffing Company Ltd, was granted Exploration Licence No. 0932 by the Commissioner of Geological Survey and Mines in January 2012 over an area previously held by Hima Cement (1994) Ltd. An entity styled Hima Cement Ltd requested administrative review of the grant by the Minister of Energy and Mineral Development under section 118 of the Mining Act 2003. The Minister conducted the review and, on 26 April 2012, set aside the grant of the exploration licence, finding the respondent had not demonstrated financial capacity or technical competence. The respondent applied for judicial review in the High Court, which found Hima Cement Ltd to be a non-existent entity incapable of being an aggrieved person, and quashed the Minister's decision by certiorari. Hima Cement Ltd was not a cited party in the High Court and did not appeal. Only the Attorney General appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the Minister, being an impartial administrative tribunal, could lawfully appeal to challenge the High Court's decision.
2. Whether the Attorney General could competently bring the appeal where the grievance in substance belonged to Hima Cement Ltd, which had not appealed.
3. Whether the learned trial judge erred in finding Hima Cement Ltd to be a non-existent legal person lacking locus standi to seek administrative review under section 118 of the Mining Act.

Orders

• The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
• Costs awarded to the respondent both at the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (18)

• Mining Act 2003 s.118
• Mining Act 2003 s.119
• Mining Act 2003 s.28(3)
• Companies Act Cap 110 s.19(1)
• Companies Act 2012 s.40(1)
• Companies Act 2012 s.40(5)
• Government Proceedings Act Cap 77 s.10
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.119(3)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.119(4)
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.114
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.6
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.10
• Mining Regulations 2004 reg.8(c)
• Mining Regulations 2004 reg.9
• Mining Regulations 2004 reg.10
• Mining Regulations 2004 reg.12
• Mining Regulations 2004 reg.54
• Mining Regulations 2004 reg.55

Cases cited (2)

• Kilembe Mines Ltd v Uganda Gold Mines Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2012)
• Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co. Ltd v Frederick Muigai Wangoe [1959] EA 474

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