Wakilii

Bashasha & Anor v Attorney General & 3 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO 223 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 55 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking declarations and orders prohibiting police investigations into payments made under court orders
Decision
Application for judicial review granted with orders of prohibition and injunction issued restraining police from interfering with execution of court orders

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 police investigations into payments made under court orders constitute illegal interference with judicial functions and violate the constitutional principle of judicial independence. The police mandate under Article 212 of the Constitution and the Police Act does not extend to investigating execution of court orders. Where letters of administration have been granted, only the High Court has jurisdiction to revoke them, and police cannot interfere with estate administration based on powers of attorney from unauthorised persons. Orders of prohibition and injunction granted restraining police from investigating or interfering with court orders.

Outcome

Application for judicial review granted with orders of prohibition and injunction issued restraining police from interfering with execution of court orders

Facts

M/s Bashasha & Co. Advocates represented various clients in suits against government which had been concluded with decrees and orders for payment issued. Part payments were made through the applicants for transmission to clients. The Uganda Police Force, through the Criminal Intelligence and Investigations Directorate, conducted investigations into these payments made under court orders. Despite a directive in October 2014 from the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs instructing police to cease such investigations, police continued investigating through letters dated August 2016 seeking information about compensation payments. One Barnabas B. Taremwa, using Image Finance Ltd, obtained a power of attorney from unauthorised persons in respect of the estate of the late Erieza Zimbiha and used it to influence police investigations, despite existing letters of administration having been granted for the estate. The applicants sought judicial review to restrain police interference with execution of court orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the mandate of the police force extends to investigating payments made under orders of court and or execution of orders of court?
  2. Whether the police force have a mandate to investigate matters of administration of an estate of a deceased or mismanagement of the same where court has issued and/or granted letters of administration?
  3. What remedies are available to the applicant?

Orders

  • A declaration that the respondents' investigations into payments made under orders of court and/or in execution of orders of court to the applicant as an advocate and/or actions of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents as agents of the 1st respondent are ultravires, illegal and an affront of the independence of the judiciary.
  • An order of prohibition doth issue prohibiting the respondents, their agents and any person from investigating or interfering with decisions made by court or orders of court or execution of orders of court without following due process.
  • An injunction doth issue restraining the respondents, their agents or any person under their authority from investigating or interfering in any way whatsoever with subsisting orders of court and the payments therefrom.
  • Costs of this application be provided for.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Independence — Police Interference with Court Orders — Constitutional Prohibition
Article 128(1) of the Constitution provides that no person or authority shall interfere with the courts or judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial functions. Police investigations into payments made under orders of court or execution of court orders constitute direct interference with judicial powers and are illegal and ultra vires.
Police Powers — Limits of Investigative Mandate — Execution of Court Orders
The mandate of the police under Article 212 of the Constitution and section 4(1) of the Police Act Cap 303 is to protect life and property, preserve law and order, prevent and detect crime, and enforce the laws of Uganda. This mandate does not extend to investigating payments made under orders of court or interfering with execution of court orders.
Grounds for Review — Illegality — Ultra Vires Acts by Public Authority
In judicial review proceedings, the court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over decisions and acts of public bodies and is concerned with the lawfulness of the decision-making process. Where a public authority acts beyond its constitutional or statutory mandate, such acts are illegal and ultra vires and will be restrained by orders of prohibition and injunction.
Execution of Decrees — Sanctity of Court Orders — Interference by Third Parties
A court order must be obeyed as ordered unless set aside or varied through due process. Any investigations into the circumstances or facts of a judgment, or interference with execution of a decree without following due process of challenging the judgment, is outrightly illegal and undermines judicial authority.
Letters of Administration — Exclusive Jurisdiction of Court — Powers of Attorney by Unauthorised Persons
Under sections 180, 192, 264 and 278 of the Succession Act Cap 162, all rights of an intestate are vested in the administrator, and only the grantee of letters of administration is mandated to sue, prosecute or otherwise act as representative of the deceased until the letters are revoked by the High Court. A power of attorney purportedly granted by beneficiaries to third parties cannot override letters of administration, and police cannot rely on such powers of attorney to interfere with estate administration.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (3)

  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Ocip Moses & Others v Attorney General & Auditor General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2013)
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal & Others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bashasha & Anor v Attorney General & 3 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO 223 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 55 (20 February 2017)
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.