Wakilii

Centre for Public Interest Law Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 241 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction pending determination of judicial review application challenging statutory instrument
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed with no order as to costs

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 a temporary injunction restraining implementation of Statutory Instrument No. 62 of 2020 would not preserve the status quo but would disrupt it, as the instrument was already in force having revoked the prior instrument. Courts should be reluctant to grant injunctions against public bodies performing statutory functions or to suspend the operation of legislation that has not been declared unconstitutional. Public interest considerations justified refusal of the injunction where granting it would create a vacuum in the electricity sector and disrupt government functions serving the public at large. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

Centre for Public Interest Law Limited, a public interest organisation, filed an application for judicial review seeking to quash Statutory Instrument No. 62 of 2020 which established and provided for management of the Rural Electrification Fund. SI 62/2020 was passed by the Minister of Energy and Mineral Development and revoked the prior SI 75/2001 that had governed the fund since 2001. The applicant challenged the new instrument as ultra vires the Electricity Act 1999 on grounds including inadequate private sector and NGO representation on the reconstituted Rural Electrification Board and failure to consult the public as required by the Constitution. Pending determination of the judicial review, the applicant sought a temporary injunction restraining enforcement of SI 62/2020. The respondent opposed, arguing the Minister acted within delegated powers, the reconstitution was a policy decision addressing practical concerns, and an injunction would paralyse the electricity sector and expose government to financial and legal liabilities under existing contracts with development partners.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has a prima facie case with a probability of success in its judicial review application challenging Statutory Instrument No. 62 of 2020.
  2. Whether the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant or the respondent.
  4. Whether the court should grant a temporary injunction that would suspend the operation of a statutory instrument before the determination of the judicial review application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Temporary Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo
A temporary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo until final determination, not to change it. Where a statutory instrument has come into force and revoked prior legislation, the current status quo is the new instrument in operation; granting an injunction to suspend it would alter rather than preserve the status quo.
Administrative Law — Injunctions Against Public Bodies — Reluctance to Restrain Statutory Functions
Courts should be reluctant to restrain a public body from doing what the law allows it to do or from executing its core mandate or statutory function. In such circumstances, the grant of an injunction may perpetrate breach of the law which public bodies are mandated to uphold.
Judicial Review — Temporary Injunctions — Suspension of Legislation
Courts cannot as a matter of law grant an injunction which will have the effect of suspending the operation of legislation. Suspending the operation of a law that has not been declared unconstitutional is a very serious matter and courts should be slow to do so, particularly without hearing evidence.
Administrative Law — Temporary Injunctions — Public Interest Considerations
Public interest is one of the paramount and relevant considerations for granting or refusing to grant or discharge an interim injunction. Courts should be slow in granting injunctions against government projects which are meant for the interest of the public at large as against the private proprietary interest or otherwise for a few individuals. Between conflicting interests, the interest of the public at large must prevail over the interest of a few individuals.
Administrative Law — Injunctions Against Public Bodies — Prima Facie Case of Unlawfulness Required
Public bodies should not be prevented from exercising powers conferred under statute unless the person seeking an injunction can establish a prima facie case that the public authority is acting unlawfully. A public body is deemed to have taken a decision or adopted a measure in exercise of powers which it is meant to use for the public good.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (13)

  • E.L.T. Kiyimba-Kaggwa v Hajji Katende Abdu Nasser (HCCS No. 2109 of 1984)
  • Regent Oil Co Ltd v JT Leavesley (Lichfield) Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 1210
  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others (Misc. Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (SCCA No. 7 of 1994)
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Behangana Domaro and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2010)
  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • Uganda National Bureau of Standards v Ren Publishers Ltd & Multiplex Limited (HCMA No. 635 of 2019)
  • Alcohol Association of Uganda & Others v AG & URA (HCMA No. 744 of 2019)
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame Ltd [1990] 2 AC 85
  • Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited & Another v The Governor of Lagos State & Others 5 ALL NTC- Lagos High Court
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraj v Attorney General (HCMA No. 551 of 2018)
  • Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centre for Public Interest Law Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 241 (15 June 2020)
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.