Wakilii

Dr. Tindyebwa v Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) and Another (Misc Cause No. 120 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 203 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 98 Civil Procedure Act to challenge internal party nomination decision for EALA representation
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents

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 dismissed an application challenging a political party's decision to nominate only one candidate for EALA elections. The court held that the application was improperly brought as it sought judicial review remedies without being filed as a judicial review application, and that a political party is a public body whose decisions must be challenged through judicial review. On the merits, the court found no law requiring a political party to nominate multiple candidates for EALA elections, and held that courts should not interfere with internal party nomination decisions taken in good faith and for strategic reasons.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Facts

The Applicant, Dr. Joseph Tindyebwa, is Deputy Secretary General Research and Policy of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC). The FDC conducted primaries for nomination of candidates for election to the East African Legislative Assembly. The 2nd Respondent emerged winner and the Applicant emerged second out of five candidates. The FDC's National Executive Committee, the party's highest decision-making body, had previously decided in a meeting on 21 January 2022 to send only one candidate to the National Parliament to contest for a seat in EALA on the FDC ticket. The Applicant, who was present at that NEC meeting and participated in the decision, brought this application seeking to compel the FDC to nominate him as a second candidate alongside the 2nd Respondent. The Applicant claimed the FDC's decision to nominate only one candidate breached the laws governing nomination of EALA candidates and violated past practice where the FDC had consistently seconded two candidates.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before the Court.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent's action of nominating the 2nd Respondent as a sole candidate was within the law.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Definition of Public Body — Political Parties as Public Bodies
Under Rule 3(f) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019, a political party is expressly included in the definition of a public body. The phrase 'established by an Act of Parliament' in that provision applies only to councils, boards, committees or societies established for the benefit, regulation and control of any profession, and does not apply to political parties, trade unions or non-governmental organisations. A political party is therefore a public body whose acts or decisions may be challenged in judicial review.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Exercise with Restraint — Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedies
Where there exists an alternative remedy through statutory law, it is desirable that such statutory remedy should be pursued first. A court's inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked where there is a specific statutory provision which would meet the necessities of the case. The rationale is that such is the only way institutions and their structures will be respected and strengthened. The inherent jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint to avoid opening up a floodgate of suits.
Judicial Review — Proper Procedure — Applications Seeking Prerogative Remedies Must Be Brought by Judicial Review
Where an application seeks reliefs that are mainly available in exercise of the court's prerogative powers, such as writs of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition, the application ought to be brought as a judicial review application. It is irregular for an applicant to ignore a fully set out legal infrastructure for judicial review and attempt to invoke the court's inherent powers instead. Where the reliefs sought are provided for under the realm of judicial review, the application would fail for having been improperly brought.
Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Internal Remedies — Requirement Before Approaching Court
Where an entity has internal procedures and mechanisms for resolving disputes, an applicant ought to exhaust those internal procedures before bringing the matter to court. Failure to exhaust internal remedies, even where there may be justification for not doing so, does not drive the matter outside the realm of judicial review but may constitute grounds for seeking leave to file an application out of time.
Electoral Law — EALA Elections — Party Nomination Procedures — No Statutory Requirement for Multiple Candidates
There is no provision in the Treaty Establishing the East African Community, the East African Legislative Assembly Elections Act, or the Rules of Procedure of Parliament that requires a political party to nominate multiple candidates for election to the East African Legislative Assembly. Section 4(3) of the EALA Elections Act and Article 50 of the Treaty do not dictate criteria to be used by a partner state or political party when choosing representatives, but only spell out what must be taken into consideration. A political party may choose to nominate one candidate, more candidates, or no candidates at all as a matter of discretion.
Administrative Law — Judicial Restraint — Non-Interference with Internal Party Decisions — Strategic Political Decisions
The issue of nomination of candidates for elections is an exclusive preserve of political parties concerned. Courts are loath to interfere with and decide for a political party who to nominate and who not to nominate for an election. A political party using its structures can choose a candidate for strategic reasons and in the best interest of the party. Courts will not interfere with such internal decision-making processes unless the decision manifests illegal or unreasonable exercise of discretion. A party cannot be bound by past practices and customs that have proved unsuccessful or not strategic in prevailing circumstances.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (9)

  • Sewanyana Jimmy v Kampala International University (HCMC No. 207 of 2016)
  • Charles Nsubuga v Eng. Badru Kiggundu and 3 Others (HC MC No. 148 of 2015)
  • Bernard Mulage v Fineserve Africa Limited & 3 Ors, Petition No. 503 of 2014
  • Speaker of National Assembly vs Ngenga Karume [2008] 1KLR 425
  • DP & Mukasa Mbidde vs Secretary General East African Community & AG of Uganda
  • Anita Annet Among vs the Secretary General of East African Community and Attorney General of Uganda Ref No. 6/2012
  • Niwabiine and 22 Others v NRM and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 143 of 2022)
  • Anyang Nyong'o & East African Institute for Trade and Policy and Law vs Secretary General East African Community Ref No. 9/2012
  • Abdu Katuntu vs Secretary General of East African Community & Attorney General of Uganda

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. Tindyebwa v Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) and Another (Misc Cause No. 120 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 203 (6 October 2022)
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.