Bataamwe v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 280 OF 2019)

Observed later treatment

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

Application for judicial review of Law Council's refusal to grant certificate of eligibility for enrollment as advocate dismissed. Held that applicant who obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from Rwanda, a civil law jurisdiction, was not covered by s.8(8)(a) or s.8(9) of the Advocates (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2002. Law Council decision distinguishable from Katungi Tony case where bar qualification was from Kenya, a common law jurisdiction. No illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety established.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant held a law degree from Islamic University in Uganda and a Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the Institute of Legal Practice and Development in Rwanda. On 1 August 2019, he wrote to the Law Council inquiring about eligibility for enrollment as an advocate in Uganda. By letter dated 26 August 2019, the Law Council Committee on Legal Education and Training found him ineligible for enrollment as an advocate in Uganda because he obtained his legal practice qualification from Rwanda, which is not a common law jurisdiction. The applicant sought judicial review contending the decision was illegal, unfair, irrational and arbitrary, relying on the earlier decision in Katungi Tony v Attorney General which ordered that Ugandan law degree holders satisfying s.8(9) requirements should be considered for enrollment.

Issues

1. Whether the application raised grounds for judicial review — specifically whether the Law Council's decision finding the applicant ineligible to apply for enrollment as an advocate was tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the remedies sought in the application.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 Article 126
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.36(1)(a)
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.36(1)(c)
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.41
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.42
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 3
• Advocates (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2002 s.8(8)(a)
• Advocates (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2002 s.8(8)(b)(iii)
• Advocates (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2002 s.8(9)
• Advocates (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2002 s.8(4)
• Advocates (Enrollment and Certification) Regulations SI 267-I s.2

Cases cited (6)

• Koluo Joseph Andres & 2 Ors v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
• John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
• Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
• Balondemu David v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
• Ignatius Loyola Malungu v Inspector General of Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 059 of 2016)
• Katungi Tony v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 204 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Andrew Bataamye v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 35 of 2022)

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