Wakilii

Dr. Bakame Rwabikana v Attorney General Of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause 116 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 361 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari and mandamus
Decision
Judicial review application partly allowed. UPDF pension reinstated with arrears; Mulago Hospital pension payment stoppage upheld; general damages denied.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

The High Court granted judicial review in part, finding that the pension authority acted illegally, procedurally improperly, and irrationally in stopping both of the applicant's pension payments without notice or hearing. While the applicant had wrongly received two concurrent salaries and two pensions from public funds contrary to the Public Service Standing Orders, he remained entitled to one pension from his UPDF service. The Court quashed the decision stopping the UPDF pension and ordered reinstatement with arrears, but denied general damages due to the applicant's unjust enrichment.

Outcome

Judicial review application partly allowed. UPDF pension reinstated with arrears; Mulago Hospital pension payment stoppage upheld; general damages denied.

Facts

The applicant, Dr. Bakame Rwabikana, worked concurrently in two public service positions from 1985: as a medical officer in the National Resistance Army (later UPDF) until 2000, and as a medical officer at Mulago Hospital from 1995 until retirement in 2014. He received salaries from both positions and, after leaving both services, drew two separate pensions until October 2020 when both payments were stopped without notice. The Ministry of Public Service had discovered during a verification exercise that the applicant held two appointments and drew two salaries and two pensions from the consolidated fund contrary to the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders section F-a(14). The applicant wrote to the Ministry seeking explanation but received no formal response. He exhausted internal remedies before filing this judicial review application seeking reinstatement of his pension payments.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply filed out of time should be validated by the Court.
  2. Whether the application for judicial review is properly before the Court.
  3. Whether the application discloses any sufficient grounds for judicial review on the basis of illegality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • An Order of Certiorari is granted quashing the decision of the pension authority stopping payment of the Applicant's pension accruing from his service with the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF).
  • An Order of Mandamus is granted directing the pension authority, through the Respondent, to reinstate the Applicant's pension payment accruing from his service with the UPDF including payment of arrears from September 2020.
  • The reinstatement of the Applicant on the pension pay roll shall be effected within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
  • The claim for general damages is rejected.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Applicant against the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality — Ultra Vires Exercise of Power by Pension Authority
Where a public officer receives two pension payments contrary to the Public Service Standing Orders but is lawfully entitled to one pension, the pension authority acts illegally by totally withdrawing both pension payments without taking legal steps to determine which pension is lawful, as pension is a statutory entitlement under section 9(1) of the Pensions Act Cap 286 that cannot be withdrawn except in accordance with law.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Procedural Impropriety — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem
The common law requirement of fair hearing applies even where there are no adopted or statutory rules of procedure that the decision maker was obliged to follow, and the pension authority must, at minimum, formally notify a pensioner and give them an opportunity to show cause before stopping pension payments, notwithstanding that the pensioner has committed an illegality.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Irrationality — Wednesbury Unreasonableness
A decision by a pension authority to stop both pension payments where a pensioner has accessed two pensions unlawfully, without determining which pension is lawful and without any justification for stopping the lawful entitlement, defies logic and is unreasonable within the meaning of the irrationality ground in judicial review.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies
An application for judicial review is not premature where the applicant has written to the responsible public authority and received no formal response, and the respondent has failed to lead evidence showing that any procedure existed within the law or the public bodies for addressing the complaint.
Judicial Review — Remedies — General Damages — Unjust Enrichment
General damages are not available in judicial review where there is undisputed evidence that the applicant took advantage of the system and received unlawful payments from the consolidated fund, as the applicant has been a beneficiary of unjust enrichment and cannot receive any extra payment through the court beyond their lawful pension entitlement and arrears.
Affidavits — Filing Out of Time — Validation — Inherent Powers of Court
Under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 33 of the Judicature Act and Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may exercise discretion to validate an affidavit in reply filed out of time where the opposite party has been served with the affidavit and has relied on it during submissions, provided that any possible prejudice may be catered for by way of an order as to costs.
Public Service — Pensions — Statutory Entitlement
Under section 9(1) of the Pensions Act Cap 286, every officer employed in the public service who has qualified for a pension is entitled to it as of right, and pension, like salary, is an entitlement that cannot be withdrawn except in accordance with the law.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
  • Leads Insurance Company Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimmire and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew and Others v Attorney General and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2018)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 375
  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 007 of 2016)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 762

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. Bakame Rwabikana v Attorney General Of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause 116 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 361 (12 December 2023)
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.