Wakilii

Hon. Ssali Isaac Keith and Another v H.W Mayor Regina Bakitte Nakazzi Musoke and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 11 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 304 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging termination from executive positions
Decision
Judicial review application dismissed; revocation of appointments upheld as lawful

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 a judicial review application challenging the Mayor's revocation of the applicants' executive appointments at Nansana Municipal Council. The court held that under sections 18(3) and 20(a) of the Local Government Act, the Mayor had statutory power to nominate and revoke appointments of executive committee members without a hearing. Although the exercise of such power may have been arbitrary, it was lawful and within the four corners of the statute, thus not subject to judicial review.

Outcome

Judicial review application dismissed; revocation of appointments upheld as lawful

Facts

The applicants were elected councillors at Nansana Municipal Council who were nominated by the 1st respondent (the Mayor) to serve as Deputy Mayor and Secretary for Finance, and Secretary for Production, Marketing, Environment and Cooperatives. They were approved by the council and served for over two and a half years. On 8 November 2018, the Mayor terminated their appointments without prior hearing, stating she wanted to give others a chance to bring new ideas, skills and knowledge and achieve more balanced representation in the municipality. The applicants challenged the termination through judicial review, arguing they were denied a fair hearing in violation of natural justice principles and the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent followed procedure in terminating the Applicants from holding executive positions in Nansana Municipal Council.
  2. Whether the termination was lawful.
  3. Whether the 2nd Respondent is liable for the actions of the 1st Respondent.
  4. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs since it was a matter of public interest.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Scope — Powers Conferred by Statute
Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. Its purpose is to ensure that powers of public decision-making bodies are exercised lawfully, within jurisdiction, in accordance with fair procedures, and reasonably. Where statutory power is exercised within the four corners of the enabling legislation, the decision is not ultra vires even if it may be perceived as arbitrary or unfair.
Local Government Act — Appointment and Revocation of Executive Members
Under section 18(3) of the Local Government Act, a chairperson may nominate secretaries from among council members for approval by majority vote. Under section 20(a), the chairperson may revoke such appointments. The statute does not require the chairperson to accord a hearing or provide reasons before revoking an appointment.
Natural Justice — Right to be Heard — Statutory Exclusion
Where an enabling statute does not envisage according a person a hearing before revocation of appointment, and the statutory power is exercised within its four corners, constitutional provisions on fair hearing do not override the clear statutory framework governing the revocation process.
Exercise of Statutory Power — Presumption of Lawful Exercise
Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as if upon trust and must be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and on correct grounds. However, where the statute grants discretion without prescribing procedure, the courts will not impose additional procedural requirements absent clear statutory language or established grounds for ultra vires action.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (5)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon. Ssali Isaac Keith and Another v H.W Mayor Regina Bakitte Nakazzi Musoke and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 11 of 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 304 (12 July 2019)
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.