Wakilii

Hon. Elilu Paul and Another vs Soroti City West Division (Miscellaneous Cause No. 9 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 88 · 2022 Application Granted — Judicial Review Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari, mandamus, declarations, and injunction against censure from executive positions
Decision
Orders of certiorari, mandamus, and injunction granted; applicants reinstated in their executive positions

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 held that the censure of the applicants from their executive positions by Soroti City West Division Council was illegal, irregular, unlawful, and unfair because the respondent failed to follow due process and accord the applicants a fair hearing as required by the Local Government Act s.21 and the principles of natural justice. The court granted orders of certiorari quashing the censure decision, mandamus directing reinstatement, and an injunction restraining further interference.

Outcome

Orders of certiorari, mandamus, and injunction granted; applicants reinstated in their executive positions

Facts

The applicants, Hon. Elilu Paul (Secretary Works) and Hon. Ocen Joseph (Deputy Mayor of Soroti City West Division), were censured from their executive positions by council resolution on 22 February 2022 following a censure petition presented by Hon. Opio Vincent. The applicants contended they were never properly served with the petition, were not given the statutory 14 days' notice before the debate, and were denied the opportunity to be heard during the council meeting. The censure motion was debated and passed in their presence without affording them a hearing. The applicants were first notified of the censure on 24 January 2022 when shown a letter at the Mayor's office, but the final censure debate and resolution occurred at the council meeting of 22 February 2022. They applied for judicial review on 7 June 2022 seeking to quash the censure decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was filed out of time and amenable for judicial review.
  2. Whether the preliminary objection regarding the capacity of the deponent to the affidavit in reply should be upheld.
  3. Whether the censure of the applicants from their executive positions violated the principles of natural justice and the requirements of the Local Government Act.
  4. Whether the court should grant orders of certiorari, mandamus, declarations, and injunction against the respondent.

Orders

  • It is declared that the decision by the respondent to censure the applicants from their executive positions is illegal, irregular, unlawful, high handed and unfair when they failed to follow the legal process and accord them a fair hearing.
  • An order of certiorari doth issue against the respondent quashing its decision in Min.09/CSCWD/22/02/2022 and Min.06/CSCWD/28/2022 respectively, made by the respondent censuring the applicants' executive positions as the Secretary Works, Environment and Production Department and Deputy Mayor Soroti West Division Council.
  • An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling and directing the respondent to restore the applicants in their executive positions as Secretary Works, Environment and Production department and Deputy Mayor Soroti West Division Council.
  • An injunction is hereby issued restraining the respondent from interfering with the applicants' position as Secretary Works, Environment and Production Department and Deputy Mayor Soroti West Division Council.
  • No order for general and aggravated damages is issued against the respondent to encourage harmonious relationship in the Divisional Council.
  • No order of costs is awarded as this is a matter of public importance and concern which resolves around democratic principles of conduct of public business.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Extension of Time
Where an application for judicial review is filed beyond the mandatory three-month period prescribed by Rule 5 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, the court may extend the time if there is good reason. Matters involving representation of the population and democratic principles constitute good reason for extension, and dismissal on technical grounds where issues go to the root of justice and democracy would be a miscarriage of justice.
Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Right to Be Heard
Under the Local Government Act s.21, proceedings for censure against a member of a local government executive committee must afford the affected member a right to be heard during the debate. Where a member is censured without being given an opportunity to defend themselves during the council debate, the censure decision violates the principle of audi alteram partem and is liable to be quashed by certiorari.
Local Government — Censure Procedure — Statutory Compliance
The Local Government Act s.21 requires that: a censure petition be signed by not less than one-third of all council members; a copy of the petition be given to the affected member; and the censure motion not be debated until 14 days after the petition is sent to the chairperson. Failure to comply with these procedural safeguards renders a censure decision illegal and irregular.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Grounds for Issuance
An order of certiorari will issue to quash an administrative decision that is ultra vires, vitiated by error on the face of the record, or arbitrary and oppressive. The prerogative order is designed to prevent the excess of or outright abuse of power by public authorities and to make the machinery of government operate properly according to law and in the public interest.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Remedies
Under Rule 7A(1)(b) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules, the court must satisfy itself that the aggrieved person has exhausted existing remedies available within the public body or under the law. Where an applicant was denied a fair hearing during an administrative process and was afforded no internal opportunity to be heard, the applicant has exhausted all internal remedies and is properly before the court.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (10)

  • Paulo Ssemogerere and Olum v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999)
  • Eseza Namirembe v Musa Kizito [1972] ULR 88
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Others (Civil Application No. 78 of 2005)
  • Re Mustafa Ramadhan [1996] KALR 86
  • Owor Arthur and 8 Others v Gulu University (HCMA No. 0018 of 2007)
  • Stream Aviation Ltd v The Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 377 of 2008)
  • Re An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club (1963) E.A. 473
  • Haji Mohamed Besweri Kezaala v The IGG and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2009)
  • Marko Matovu and 2 Others v Sseviri and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1978)
  • Abbot v Sullivan [1952] 1 All E.R. 226

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.

Hon. Elilu Paul and Another vs Soroti City West Division (Miscellaneous Cause No. 9 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 88 (7 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.