Wakilii

Baryaruha v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.149 OF 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 67 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash findings and recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry
Decision
Findings and recommendations of the Commission against the applicant declared null and void

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Chairperson of the Commission exhibited actual bias through insulting and abusive statements against the applicant during the inquiry. Held that several Commissioners had prior dealings with UNRA that created reasonable suspicion of bias and conflict of interest. Held that the applicant was not given adequate notice of all allegations against him, was not afforded a fair hearing on multiple projects cited in the report, and was condemned unheard on matters for which he was never questioned. Held that the Commission breached principles of natural justice and the constitutional right to fair treatment under Article 42. Application granted. Findings and recommendations against the applicant declared null and void.

Outcome

Findings and recommendations of the Commission against the applicant declared null and void

Facts

The applicant, a former Legal Counsel at Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA), sought judicial review of findings and recommendations made against him by a Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Mismanagement, Abuse of Office and Corrupt Practices in UNRA. The Commission submitted its report to the President on 26 May 2016. The applicant was summoned to appear before the Commission on two occasions (24 August 2015 and 11 October 2015) and to make a statement to the secretariat on 12 September 2015. The first summons specified only the Tororo-Mbale-Soroti Road Project; the second summons did not specify which projects he was to address. The applicant alleged that during his appearance on 25 August 2015, the Chairperson made insulting and abusive statements about him including accusations about his wealth and a statement that his fate had been predetermined. The report made adverse findings and recommended prosecution of the applicant on multiple projects including the Hoima-Kaiso-Tonya Road, Mbarara-Kikagate Road, Lake Kyoga Ferry, and UNRA office space procurement. The applicant contended he was never questioned about these projects when he appeared before the Commission. Several Commissioners had prior professional dealings with UNRA in various capacities as consultants or advisors.

Issues

  1. Whether the Members of the Commission and in particular the Chairperson of the Commission were biased towards the Applicant
  2. Whether the Applicant was accorded a fair hearing on the various allegations made against him
  3. Whether the Commission followed principles of natural justice in making its findings and recommendations in relation to the Applicant
  4. Whether the findings and recommendations of the Commission in respect to the Applicant were unreasonable and irrational
  5. Whether in making its findings and recommendations, the Commission complied with the relevant law, specifically the provisions of Legal Notice No. 4 of 2015 and the Commissions of Inquiry Act Cap 166
  6. What are the remedies available to the parties

Orders

  • Declaratory Order that the Findings and Recommendations contained in the Commission of Inquiry Report into Allegations of Mismanagement, Abuse of Office and Corrupt Practices in the Uganda National Roads Authority against the applicant arrived at in breach of the right to be treated justly and fairly are null and void.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Bias — Test for Reasonable Suspicion of Bias
In determining bias in administrative proceedings, the test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. The test looks at whether a reasonable person in possession of relevant information would have thought that bias was likely, not what actually happened but the substantial possibility of that which appeared to have happened. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
Bias — Insulting or Abusive Language by Decision-Maker
Where a chairperson of an administrative tribunal makes insulting, abusive, or derogatory statements about a person appearing before it, such statements show an appearance of bias and are bound to be interpreted as gratuitous insult. Such conduct by a decision-maker creates reasonable apprehension of bias even if the tribunal was in fact impartial.
Bias — Prior Professional Dealings with Subject Matter — Conflict of Interest
Where members of a Commission of Inquiry have had prior professional dealings or involvement with the entity under investigation in capacities that gave them access to information relevant to the inquiry, a fair-minded observer may reasonably apprehend bias. Such prior connection creates a conflict of interest that imputes an element of bias in the execution of their duties as Commissioners, even if they applied their minds properly and acted without actual bias.
Right to Fair Hearing — Adequate Notice of Allegations
Under Article 42 of the Constitution, a person appearing before an administrative body has a right to be treated justly and fairly. This includes the right to adequate notice of allegations. The test of adequacy of notice is whether it gives sufficient information and material to enable the person concerned to put up an effective defence. Where a witness summons fails to specify the particular areas of inquiry, the nature of documents required, or the nature of evidence to which the person must respond, it does not afford fair notice.
Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard — Condemnation Without Hearing
The right to a fair hearing includes the right to be informed of evidence against one, the right to present evidence and cross-examine, and the right to rebut adverse evidence. Where a Commission makes adverse findings and recommends prosecution on matters for which a person was never questioned or given an opportunity to explain, such person has been condemned unheard in violation of natural justice. The procedure offends the rule that no person is to be condemned unless given prior notice of allegations and a fair opportunity to be heard.
Commissions of Inquiry — Duty of Fairness — Procedural Requirements
Although a Commission of Inquiry is not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure applicable to courts, it remains subject to a general duty of fairness. Where a Commission has power to make recommendations for criminal prosecution or other adverse action against persons, it must act with substantial fairness and afford those persons procedural fairness including adequate notice, opportunity to be heard on all matters adversely affecting them, disclosure of evidence against them, and opportunity to rebut that evidence.
Judicial Review Remedies — Effect of Breach of Natural Justice
Where a decision is arrived at in breach of natural justice including bias and denial of fair hearing, such decision is null and void regardless of whether the same decision would have been made had the proper procedure been followed. The grant of judicial review remedies remains discretionary but where there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, the court should grant appropriate remedies to ensure fair treatment.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (45)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze vs Makerere University Council & 2 Others Misc Cause No. 353 of 2005
  • DOTT Services Ltd vs Attorney General Misc Cause No.125 of 2009
  • Balondemu David vs The Law Development Centre Misc Cause No.61 of 2016
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • HCT-00-CC-CA-128/2011 Seyani Brothers & Co. Ltd versus Cassia Limited
  • EPA No. 04/2011 Obiga Mario Kania versus Electoral Commission
  • SC Crim. Appeal No. 33/91, Professor Isaac Newton Ojok versus Uganda
  • House of Lords Session 1998-99 Re Pinochet
  • George vs McIntyre AG 2003 HC 10
  • Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35
  • Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357
  • Gilles v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] UKHL 2
  • Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd & Anor [2000] 2 WLR 870
  • R (Island Farm Development) v Bridgend County BC [2006] EWHC 2189
  • Eng. Luyimbazi SSali & Others Vs AG Misc Cause No.156 of 2016
  • Kamlesh Mansukhlal Damji Pattni and Goldenberg International Civil Application No. NAI 301 of 1999 (115/99) (unreported)
  • Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No.2) [2001] 1 WLR 700
  • R v Kent Police Authority ex p Godden [1971] 2 QB 662
  • Uganda vs Patricia Ojangole Criminal Case No. 1/2014
  • Federation of Railway Officers Association v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289
  • HCCS No. 212/2009 Twinomugisha Moses versus Rift Valley Railways (U) Limited
  • Election Petition Appeal No. 04/2009; Bakaluba Peter Mukasa versus Nambooze Betty Bakireke
  • High Court Misc. Cause No. 042 OF 2016 Amuron Dorothy V LDC
  • Civil Appeal No. 56/1981 Charles Oloo versus Kenya Posts and Telecommunications
  • HCMC No. 441/2004 Annebritt Aslund versus the Attorney General
  • HCMC No.053/2014 Kampala University versus National Council for Higher Education
  • Dott Services Ltd & Anor vs Attorney General Miscellaneous Cause No.137 of 2016
  • Beno v Canada [1997] 2 FC
  • Mahon v Air New Zealand [1984] AC 808
  • Canada (Attorney General) v Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System) [1997] 3 SCR 440
  • HCMC No. 142/2018 Apiima Abel Onyancha versus KIU citing Bismillah Trading Ltd & Anor versus KCCA HCMC No.23/2015
  • Council of Civil Service Union & Ors v Minister for Civil Service [1985] 1 AC 374
  • Re An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
  • Redman v Gaskin (1964) 8 WIR 22
  • AG v Independent Broadcasting Authority [1973] 1 QB 629
  • 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
  • Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon [1968] 3 All ER 304
  • O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
  • A-G v Ryan [1980] QB 718
  • Metropolitan Properties Ltd v Lannon [1968] 3 All ER 304
  • Hannam v Bradford Corp [1970] 1 WLR 937
  • HTV Ltd v Price Commission [1976] ICR 170
  • R v Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371
  • Ojengbede Vs Esan & Anor (8 NSCQR 461)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baryaruha v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.149 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCD 67 (29 March 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.