Wakilii

Ejang Margaret Lucy and Another v Uganda Human Rights Commission and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 76 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 219 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash administrative decision recalling employment contracts
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed on all grounds

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

Application for judicial review dismissed. The High Court held that the Uganda Human Rights Commission's decision to recall the applicants' five-year employment contracts was lawful under the RAPEX rationalisation framework. The contracts had been issued contrary to Cabinet and Ministry of Public Service guidance limiting contracts to one year during the transition period. Following the Solicitor General's advice that the contracts were irregular, the Commission acted lawfully, rationally and without procedural impropriety in recalling them and providing a one-month handover period.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed on all grounds

Facts

The applicants, Ejang Margaret Lucy (Secretary) and Christopher Turigye (Director, Finance and Administration), were employed by the Uganda Human Rights Commission on five-year fixed-term contracts effective 1 May 2023 and due to expire 30 April 2028. In February 2021, Cabinet resolved to rationalise Government agencies under RAPEX and directed that staff in affected entities be engaged on one-year contracts during transition. In August 2021, the Ministry of Public Service issued guidance limiting employment contracts in RAPEX-affected entities to one year. The applicants were nonetheless granted five-year contracts in May 2023. Following a request for guidance, the Solicitor General advised on 3 March 2026 that the five-year contracts had been issued contrary to RAPEX policy and should be recalled. On 9 March 2026, the Commission offered the applicants one-month contracts to facilitate handover. The applicants challenged the recall as illegal, irrational and procedurally improper, claiming legitimate expectation that their contracts would run to expiry and seeking damages for breach of rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st respondent's decision recalling the applicants' contracts of employment was tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs having regard to the applicants' circumstances, particularly their age (over 60 years) and length of service.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Scope of Review — Supervisory vs Appellate Jurisdiction
In judicial review, the court exercises supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that bodies exercising public functions observe substantive principles of public law and that the decision-making process is lawful. The court does not have power to review the merits of the decision or to substitute the decision of the public body with its own decision.
Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
Administrative action is subject to control by judicial review on three settled grounds: illegality (failure to exercise power lawfully and within legal limits); irrationality or unreasonableness (decision so perverse that no reasonable body properly directing itself could have reached it); and procedural impropriety (failure to observe procedural standards, fairness and natural justice). Proof of any one ground is sufficient to entitle an applicant to appropriate remedies.
Public Service — Employment Contracts — RAPEX Rationalisation Framework — Validity of Contracts Issued Contrary to Policy
Where Cabinet has resolved to rationalise Government agencies under RAPEX and directed that staff in affected entities be engaged on one-year contracts during transition, employment contracts issued for longer periods in contravention of that policy are irregular. When the Solicitor General advises that such contracts ought to be recalled and aligned with RAPEX policy, the public body is obliged to take corrective action. The recall of such contracts in obedience to binding legal guidance does not constitute illegality.
Judicial Review — Irrationality — Standard of Review
A decision is irrational when it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it. An administrative decision taken to correct an identified irregularity in obedience to binding legal guidance from the Solicitor General is a rational and legally defensible response and cannot be characterised as irrational.
Judicial Review — Procedural Impropriety — Right to Fair Hearing — Administrative vs Disciplinary Decisions
An administrative step taken to correct an irregular contractual position identified through binding legal guidance from the Attorney General does not require a hearing in the same manner as a disciplinary decision. Where employees are afforded a transitional period for handover and the public body acts under a duty to give effect to legal advice, the right to a fair hearing under Article 42 of the Constitution is not breached.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ejang Margaret Lucy and Another v Uganda Human Rights Commission and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 76 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCD 219 (13 July 2026)
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.