Wakilii

Hon.Magyezi v Mbabali and 10 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 147 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 203 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling in a judicial review matter arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 011 of 2020
Decision
Ruling and order in underlying judicial review matter set aside as against the applicant personally; respondents to proceed against the Attorney General

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

Held that it is erroneous to hold a private person personally liable in judicial review proceedings for actions performed in exercise of public power. Where a Minister issues guidelines in his official capacity, he cannot be held personally liable in judicial review challenging those guidelines. The proper respondent is the Attorney General representing the public office. The ruling and order against the applicant personally were reviewed and set aside.

Outcome

Ruling and order in underlying judicial review matter set aside as against the applicant personally; respondents to proceed against the Attorney General

Facts

The respondents filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 011 of 2020 seeking judicial review of guidelines issued by the applicant on 30 June 2020 regarding operationalization of new cities. The applicant issued the guidelines purportedly under Section 95 of the Local Government Act in his capacity as Minister of Local Government. The trial court found the guidelines had no force of law as they were not published as a statutory instrument or laid before Parliament. The application was discontinued with half taxed costs awarded against the applicant. The applicant was sued and condemned to costs in his personal name rather than in his official capacity as Minister. The applicant then brought this application for review, arguing he was erroneously sued personally for acts done in his official capacity. The respondents did not contest the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling in Miscellaneous Cause No. 11 of 2020 should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. Whether the applicant was properly sued in his personal capacity for acts done in his official capacity as Minister.
  3. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The ruling in Miscellaneous Cause No. 11 of 2020 dated 21st September 2020 is reviewed and set aside as against the applicant.
  • The order extracted and dated 27th October 2020 is set aside as against the applicant.
  • The respondents shall proceed to execute the said order as against the 2nd respondent in Miscellaneous Cause No. 011 of 2020.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Proper Parties — Personal Liability of Public Officers
It is a misnomer to hold a private person personally liable for actions performed in exercise of their public power. Where a Minister issues guidelines in his official capacity, he cannot be held personally liable in judicial review proceedings challenging those guidelines.
Judicial Review — Nature and Purpose — Challenge to Decision-Making Process
Judicial review is concerned not with private rights or the merits of the decision being challenged but with the decision-making process. Its purpose is to ensure that an individual is given fair treatment by an authority to which he is being subjected. The remedy is sought and enforced against a public body or authority challenging a decision and the process followed by that body.
Review — Jurisdiction — Error Apparent on Face of Record
Under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own decrees or orders where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. Where a public officer is erroneously held personally liable for acts done in official capacity, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon.Magyezi v Mbabali and 10 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 147 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 203 (10 June 2021)
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.