Wakilii

Geraldine Ssali v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 198 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 24 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking to quash a Parliamentary Sectoral Committee report and related orders
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed with no order as to costs

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 brought by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Trade seeking to quash a Parliamentary Sectoral Committee report. The court held that the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Tourism, Trade and Industry acted within its legal mandate under the Rules of Procedure of Parliament when investigating the utilization of supplementary budget funds. The court found no procedural impropriety, holding that the applicant was afforded fair and just treatment under Article 42 of the Constitution through multiple hearings and opportunities to present her case, and that administrative bodies are masters of their own procedure and need not adopt court-like proceedings.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

Geraldine Ssali, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives, assumed office in August 2021. She inherited a supplementary budget of UGX 5 billion approved by Parliament in November 2021 for renting new office premises. In May 2022, she sought authorization to reallocate the funds from rent to renovation of the Ministry's existing premises at Farmers House, on grounds that renting did not provide value for money. She entered into a renovation contract with M/s Sarick Construction Ltd for UGX 6.02 billion and made an advance payment of UGX 4.8 billion. The Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Tourism, Trade and Industry investigated the utilization of these funds during scrutiny of the Ministerial Policy Statement for FY 2023/2024 and discovered the funds had been diverted: UGX 570 million for transportation, UGX 1.196 billion for furniture, and UGX 362 million for fuel cards. The Committee found that the Permanent Secretary had committed the Ministry to the renovation contract without required Parliamentary approval. The applicant appeared before the Committee on multiple occasions between April and July 2023. The Committee's report was adopted by Parliament on 29 August 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises grounds for judicial review.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Scope and Principles — Limited Intervention by Courts
Courts shall exercise judicial review in a limited way, respecting the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. Courts intervene only where the executive or public bodies transgress well-established laws or legal principles, and not to substitute their judgment for that of administrative decision-makers.
Parliamentary Committees — Powers and Mandate — Sectoral Committees
Parliamentary Sectoral Committees act within their legal mandate under Article 90 of the Constitution and Rules 157 and 159 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament when they assess and evaluate activities of Government and inquire into the utilization of budgets allocated to Ministries. Such inquiries do not constitute an usurpation of the powers of the Public Accounts Committee (COSASE) or ad hoc committees.
Procedural Fairness — Fair and Just Treatment under Article 42 — Distinction from Fair Hearing under Article 28
The right to just and fair treatment in administrative decisions under Article 42 of the Constitution is distinct from the right to a fair hearing under Article 28. Article 28 applies only before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. Parliamentary proceedings or investigations cannot be treated as court proceedings requiring a fair hearing as envisaged under Article 28.
Procedural Fairness — Administrative Bodies as Masters of Their Own Procedure
Administrative bodies are masters of their own procedure and need not adopt the trappings of a court. The aim is not to create procedural perfection but to achieve a balance between fairness, efficiency and predictability of outcome. Courts should not over-judicialise administrative processes by imposing court-like procedures on administrative decision-makers.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Sufficiency of Opportunity to be Heard
Where an applicant is invited for hearings on multiple occasions, presents written submissions, makes oral submissions, and is afforded opportunity to address the decision-making body, the requirements of procedural fairness are satisfied even if there was no structured hearing in the judicial meaning of the word. The applicant must establish by evidence that they were not given a fair hearing, beyond mere allegations.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (9)

  • Council of Civil Service Unions & Others v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board v Commission on Administrative Justice & 2 Others [2021] eKLR
  • Master Links Uganda Limited and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 167 of 2022)
  • R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37
  • R (BF) (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38
  • National Medical Stores v Attorney General (HCMC No. 180 of 2021)
  • Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 9 of Saskatchewan v Knight [1990] SCR 653
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani (Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2009)
  • R v Chelsea College of Art and Design, ex p Nash [2000] ELR 686

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Geraldine Ssali v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 198 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 24 (14 February 2025)
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.