Wakilii

Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG) and 2 Others v Uganda Communications Commission and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 152 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 128 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking declarations and orders against directives issued by Uganda Communications Commission
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of locus standi

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 dismissed the application for judicial review on the preliminary ground that the applicants lacked locus standi. The court held that being human rights practitioners per se does not demonstrate sufficient interest within the meaning of Rule 3A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019. The applicants failed to demonstrate an objectively defined direct or sufficient interest in the decision challenged, beyond a general concern with legality of government action.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of locus standi

Facts

On 30 April 2019, the Uganda Communications Commission issued a letter to NBS TV titled 'REPEATED BREACH OF THE MINIMUM BROADCASTING STANDARDS' directing the suspension of staff at thirteen media houses including NBS TV, BBS TV, Capital FM, CBS FM and others. The applicants, Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG), Strategic Response International (SRI), and Aboneka Michael, brought a judicial review application challenging these directives as ultra vires, illegal, and in breach of fundamental rights to fair hearing and freedom of expression. They also challenged the failure to constitute the Media Council and the Uganda Communications Tribunal. The respondents raised five preliminary objections, including that the applicants lacked locus standi. The court dealt only with the locus standi objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have sufficient grounds for Judicial Review.
  2. Whether the Applicants have locus standi to make this application.
  3. Whether the failure by the President and the Minister of Information Communication Technology to appoint and constitute the Media Council is neglect of law and due process.
  4. Whether the failure by the Minister of Information Communication and Technology to fully constitute members of the Uganda Communications Tribunal is neglect of law and due process.
  5. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the remedies prayed in the application.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Requirement of Direct or Sufficient Interest
An applicant for judicial review must demonstrate direct or sufficient interest in the matter as required by Rule 3A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019. The interest must be objective and not merely subjective feelings of indignation at alleged illegal action. Strong feelings or intensity of concern with legality of government action do not suffice on their own.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Human Rights Practitioners and Public Interest Groups
Being a human rights practitioner or stating that one's organisation works to promote rule of law, human rights and good governance does not, per se, demonstrate sufficient interest within the meaning of Rule 3A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019. The applicant must point to something beyond mere concern with legality, either a right or a factual interest.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Public Interest Litigation — Threshold for Standing
To sustain an action on account of public interest in a judicial review application, the applicant must fulfil either of two elements: that the matter before court has such real public significance that it involves a public right and an injury to the public interest, or that the applicant has sufficient interest of his or her own over and above the general interest of other members of the public.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Rationale for Standing Requirement
Courts have a duty to protect scarce state resources and the overburdened court system by ensuring that litigants who appear in matters of judicial review have direct or sufficient interest. Without a sufficient interest threshold for standing, the floodgates will open, inundating the courts with vexatious litigation and unnecessary disputes. Mere busy bodies should not be able to challenge every alleged infraction by the state or public officials.

Legislation cited (28)

Cases cited (6)

  • Hon. Abdul Katuntu and Another v MTN (U) Limited and Others (HCCS No. 248 of 2012)
  • R v Secretary of State for Environment Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504
  • R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution Ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329
  • Advocates for the People (AFP) and Musa Muhamad Kigongo v National Drug Authority and Jena Herbals (HCMA No. 209 of 2021)
  • Community Justice and Anti-Corruption Forum v Law Council and Ssebalu Lule Advocates (HCMA No. 338 of 2020)
  • Ben Muhumuza v Attorney General and Others (HCMC No. 212 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG) and 2 Others v Uganda Communications Commission and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 152 of 2019) [2024] UGHCCD 128 (22 January 2024)
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.