Wakilii

Dullo & Anor v Board of Governors, Aga khan Education Services(Uganda) & Anor (MISC. CAUSE NO. 266 OF 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 23 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking prerogative orders concerning school fees increase and constitution of board of governors
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

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

The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review against both respondents. The court held that in the absence of a properly constituted board of governors as required by the Education Act, the 1st respondent was a non-existent party and its officials' decisions could not be subject to judicial review as they were made by private individuals rather than a statutory body. The court further held that the application against the 2nd respondent was premature as the Permanent Secretary had promptly commenced inquiry into the applicants' complaint and the applicants had not exhausted the built-in mechanisms under the Education Act including the Appeals Tribunal before seeking judicial review.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Facts

The applicants, parents of children attending the international section of Aga Khan Education Services school, sought judicial review after the school increased termly fees substantially in June 2017. Key stage 1 fees rose to UGX 3,739,000 and key stage 2 to UGX 4,740,000. Parents held meetings in July 2017 and submitted a memorandum to the board on 9 August 2017. On the same day, the applicants also complained to the Commissioner for Private Schools. The school management responded on 11 August 2017 offering discounts. On 14 August 2017, the Permanent Secretary wrote to the school requesting a response to the allegations. Four days later, on 18 August 2017, the applicants filed this judicial review application challenging the constitution of the board of governors and seeking to quash the fees increase decision and compel inspection of the school's accounts.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring a representative suit.
  2. Whether the affidavit in support was incompetent due to a false averment.
  3. Whether the applicants sued a non-existent party.
  4. Whether the 2nd respondent failed to exercise its statutory duties under the Education Act.
  5. Whether the applicants exhausted available remedies before seeking judicial review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed as against the 1st respondent.
  • Application dismissed as against the 2nd respondent.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent only.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Non-Existent Statutory Body — Effect on Reviewability
Where a statutory body required by law to make decisions has not been established, decisions made by private individuals purporting to act in its place are not subject to judicial review as they are not decisions of a statutory body.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Premature Application — Exhaustion of Remedies
An application for judicial review is premature where the administrative body has promptly commenced inquiry into the complaint and the applicant has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under the governing Act including statutory appeals tribunals.
Civil Procedure — Representative Actions — Locus Standi — Representative Order
Where applicants present their complaint in the singular and do not purport to represent other persons despite making reference to meetings with others, a representative order is unnecessary for purposes of locus standi.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — False Averments — Severability
Where an affidavit contains a false averment, the court may sever the affidavit and disregard the false portion while acting on the relevant parts, following the principle in Supreme Court Election Petition 1 of 2001.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Act No. 3 of 2002 s.3
  • Judicial Review Rules 2009 rr.3, 4, 6, 7, 8
  • Education Act 13 of 2008 s.28
  • Education Act 13 of 2008 s.53
  • Education Act Third Schedule reg.3

Cases cited (3)

  • Tumuhamye & Anor v Nakamya (HCCS No. 42 of 2015)
  • Supreme Court Election Pet. 1 of 2001
  • Rubaramira Ruranga v Electoral Commission & Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 21 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dullo & Anor v Board of Governors, Aga khan Education Services(Uganda) & Anor (MISC. CAUSE NO. 266 OF 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 23 (31 January 2018)
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.