COWE (U) & Anor v Attorney General (HCT-00-CV-CS-o194-2004)
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 the NGO Board breached its duty of care by revoking the plaintiff's NGO registration certificate without affording a hearing, violating the right to be heard and fair procedure. The court found negligence established where the Board failed to follow due process before revocation, resulting in loss and damage. Special damages of UGX 8,586,000, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, and exemplary damages of UGX 2,000,000 were awarded, plus interest and costs.
Outcome
Plaintiffs awarded damages for negligence in the unlawful revocation of their NGO registration certificate
Facts
The first plaintiff was an NGO registered to operate in Mubende, Wakiso and Kampala Districts for twelve months. On 4 April 2002, the NGO Board revoked the registration certificate on grounds of public interest without giving the plaintiff a hearing. The plaintiff appealed to the Minister of Internal Affairs who upheld the revocation. The plaintiff then appealed to the High Court, which ordered reinstatement on 14 October 2002 on grounds that the plaintiff had not been given an opportunity to be heard before cancellation. The plaintiff then brought suit for damages arising from the negligent and unlawful revocation. The plaintiff's offices were closed, leased premises were lost, security guards continued to be paid, and projects came to a standstill during the period of unlawful revocation from April to November 2002.
Issues
- Whether the suit is barred by law.
- Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against the defendant.
- Whether the defendant was negligent in the execution of its duties.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Suit against the defendant succeeds.
- Special damages of UGX 8,586,000 awarded to the plaintiffs.
- General damages of UGX 30,000,000 awarded to the plaintiffs.
- Exemplary damages of UGX 2,000,000 awarded to the plaintiffs.
- 15% interest on special damages from date of filing suit till payment in full.
- Interest at court rate on general and exemplary damages from date of judgment till payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.3(1)
- Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.5
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 1(6)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 30
- Non-Governmental Organization Registration Act Cap 113 s.8(b)
- Non-Governmental Organizations Registration (Amendment) Act 2006 s.7(c)
Cases cited (10)
- Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Mwesigye Geoffrey (HCMA No. 477 of 2012)
- Attorney General v Major General Tinyefuza (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1997)
- Tororo Cement v Frokina International Ltd (SCCA No. 2 of 2001)
- Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (SCCA No. 21 of 2001)
- Steven Ssemakula v Samuel Serunjogi (Civil Suit No. 187 of 2012)
- H Kateralwire v Paul Lwanga [1989] HCB 56
- Kyamanywa v IGG (HCMA No. 143 of 2008)
- Kyambadde v Mpigi District ADM [1983] HCB 44
- David Etuket and Another v The New Vision Printing & Publication Corp (HCCS No. 86 of 1996)
- Obong v Municipal Council of Nairobi [1971] EA 91
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.