Wakilii

Cheborion Barishaki v Attorney General of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 851 of 2004)

High Court · [2005] UGHC 139 · 2005 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging interdiction from public service and seeking certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and damages
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; applicant remains interdicted pending investigation; leave to appeal granted

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 under Regulation 36 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, the Solicitor General's decision to interdict a public officer does not require observance of the rules of natural justice at the interdiction stage. The interdiction was intra vires and not ultra vires. The rules of natural justice apply only at the investigation stage under Regulation 43. The application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was premature and disclosed no cause of action. Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; applicant remains interdicted pending investigation; leave to appeal granted

Facts

The applicant, a public officer, was interdicted by the Solicitor General on 8 September 2004 while investigations were ongoing. The Minister of Justice had directed the Acting Solicitor General to take appropriate action to remove the applicant from office based on complaints. The applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review on 11 October 2004 and sought orders of certiorari quashing the interdiction decision, prohibition restraining its implementation, mandamus requiring resumption of duties, and damages. The applicant contended the interdiction was made in breach of natural justice and without a hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Solicitor General's decision to interdict the applicant was amenable to judicial review by certiorari.
  2. Whether the interdiction of the applicant was made in breach of the principles of natural justice.
  3. Whether the rules of natural justice applied at the interdiction stage under Regulation 36 of the Public Service Commission Regulations.
  4. Whether the application was brought outside the time prescribed by law.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Leave to appeal granted.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Certiorari — Scope of remedy
Certiorari and prohibition are general remedies for the control of administrative decisions affecting rights of citizens, giving effect to the principle that powers of decision must be exercised lawfully. The primary duty of certiorari and prohibition is to make the machinery of government operate properly in the public interest, rather than to protect private rights.
Natural Justice — Interdiction under Public Service Regulations
Under Regulation 36 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, where a responsible officer considers that public interest requires that a public officer ceases to exercise powers and functions of office, the responsible officer has discretion to interdict if proceedings for dismissal are being taken or about to be taken or if criminal proceedings are being instituted. The regulation does not require the responsible officer to observe the rules of natural justice before exercising the power of interdiction. The rules of natural justice apply at the investigation stage under Regulation 43, not at the interdiction stage.
Public Service — Interdiction — Jurisdictional limits
The power vested in a responsible officer by Regulation 36 stands on the bare words of the regulation. A mere requirement that the responsible officer considers that public interest requires cessation of exercise of powers is insufficient to oblige the responsible officer to observe the rules of natural justice. An interdiction decision made in good faith and within the terms of Regulation 36 is intra vires and cannot be challenged for non-observance of natural justice.
Judicial Review — Prematurity — Timing of application
An application for judicial review challenging non-observance of the rules of natural justice is premature where the interdiction stage has passed but the investigation stage, at which the rules of natural justice apply under Regulation 43, has not yet been completed. A complaint about non-observance of natural justice before the investigation stage is premature.
Judicial Review — Disciplinary powers — Judicial restraint
Where a person is exercising disciplinary powers, it is undesirable that the exercise of those powers should be fettered by threats and orders of certiorari, because that interferes with the free and proper exercise of disciplinary powers.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (2)

  • Ex parte Pritchard [1953] 1 WLR 155
  • Denis Bireje v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2004)

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.

Cheborion Barishaki v Attorney General of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 851 of 2004) [2005] UGHC 139 (18 March 2005)
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.