Eng. Fredrick Mubiru v Engineers Registration Board (Civil Appeal 87 of 2024)

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.

Holding

Held that the Engineers Registration Board violated the Appellant's constitutional right to be heard by suspending him without giving him an opportunity to respond to the third allegation against him. While the Board had properly notified the Appellant of the first two allegations and he failed to respond or appear, the suspension was omnibus and covered a third allegation for which no notice or hearing was given. The suspension was set aside and the matter remitted to the Disciplinary Committee for a proper hearing observing principles of natural justice. Damages were refused because the Appellant failed to comply with the Board's initial directives.

Outcome

Suspension set aside; matter remitted to Disciplinary Committee for fresh hearing observing principles of natural justice

Facts

The Appellant, a registered engineer, was accused of professional misconduct by the National Building Review Board, which referred the matter to the Engineers Registration Board. On 29 August 2022, the ERB wrote requiring the Appellant to respond to allegations within 7 days and notified him he would appear before the Disciplinary Committee. The Appellant never filed his response. When summoned to appear on 1 December 2022, his lawyers wrote that he had prior commitments with the Office of the Prime Minister and he did not appear. In June 2024, the NBRB wrote another letter accusing the Appellant of further professional misconduct involving the collapse of a retaining wall at a fuel station that killed five people and injured three. On 3 July 2024, the Board suspended the Appellant from practice for one year based on all three allegations, without giving him notice or opportunity to be heard on the third allegation.

Issues

1. Whether the Engineers Registration Board violated the Appellant's constitutional right to a fair hearing before suspending him from practice.
2. Whether the Disciplinary Committee properly evaluated the evidence before deciding to suspend the Appellant.
3. Whether there was bias against the Appellant in the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Whether the Appellant is entitled to general damages and aggravated damages for the suspension.

Orders

• Appeal allowed in part.
• The impugned suspension of the Appellant from practicing his profession for a period of one year is set aside forthwith.
• The Disciplinary Committee of the Engineers Registration Board shall re-schedule a proper disciplinary hearing of all allegations against the Appellant while observing principles of natural justice.
• The Appellant shall bear his own costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Engineers' Registration Act Cap 271 s.27
• Engineers' Registration Act Cap 271 s.24
• Engineers' Registration Act Cap 271 s.25
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Art.28
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Art.44(c)

Cases cited (9)

• R v Thames Magistrates Court Ex parte Polemis [1974] WLR 1371
• Baryaruha v Attorney General (MC No. 149 of 2016)
• Management Committee of Makondo Primary School and Another v Uganda National Examination Board (HCMA No. 18 of 2010)
• Fazalbhai -v- Custodian AIR 1961 (SC)
• Charles Harry Twagira v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2003)
• Gathiga -v-Kenyatta University Nairobi, HCMA No.1029 of 2007{2008] KLR 587
• Mbaki & Others v Macharia & Another (2005) 2 EA 206
• Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
• Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999) [2000] UGSC 2

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