Wakilii

Hon.Ssali Isaac Keith & Another V HW Mayor Regina Bakitte Nakazzi Musoke & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 11 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 141 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari, declarations, and prohibition against termination of applicants from executive positions at Nansana Municipal Council
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed — no relief granted to applicants

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 termination of two elected councillors from their executive positions at Nansana Municipal Council. The court held that under the Local Governments Act s.20(a), the Mayor's power to revoke appointments is statutory and does not require prior hearing or reasons. The decision, though possibly arbitrary, was within the four corners of the law and not subject to judicial review on grounds of procedural impropriety.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed — no relief granted to applicants

Facts

The applicants, elected councillors at Nansana Municipal Council, were nominated by the Mayor and appointed as Deputy Mayor and two secretarial positions on the executive committee. They served for over two and a half years. On 8 November 2018, the Mayor terminated their appointments without prior hearing. The applicants sought judicial review, alleging procedural impropriety, violation of natural justice, and breach of their constitutional right to a fair hearing. The Mayor defended her decision as lawful under the Local Governments Act, stating she revoked the appointments to give others opportunities and bring new skills to the municipality.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent followed procedure in terminating the Applicants from their executive positions.
  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, as the matter was of public interest.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
For an applicant to succeed under judicial review, it must be proved that the decision made was tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of the decision but with the decision-making process and whether fair treatment was accorded.
Revocation of Appointments — Statutory Power under Local Governments Act — No Requirement for Prior Hearing
Under s.20(a) of the Local Governments Act, the office of a member of the district executive committee shall fall vacant if the appointment is revoked by the chairperson. The Act does not require that the affected member be accorded a hearing before revocation or that reasons be given. Such statutory power, though conferred as upon trust and subject to good faith and reasonableness, does not mandate procedural safeguards akin to fair trial rights.
Political Decisions — Limits of Judicial Review
Where a decision to revoke an appointment is statutory and partly political, it may not be subject to the same procedural standards applied to ordinary administrative decisions. The power to appoint and revoke under the Local Governments Act, though conferred by Parliament and exercisable reasonably and in good faith, cannot be equated to purely administrative decisions requiring exhaustive procedural fairness. Courts assume Parliament intended statutory power to be used reasonably, but where the legislation is silent on procedure, judicial intervention is constrained.
Right to Fair Hearing — Inapplicability to Revocation of Political Appointments
Constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to a fair and speedy trial before an independent tribunal do not apply to the revocation of political appointments by a local government chairperson under statutory authority. Such revocations, being political and within statutory discretion, are not subject to the procedural safeguards required for adjudicative or quasi-judicial proceedings.
Interpretation Act — Ancillary Powers to Remove and Suspend
Under s.24 of the Interpretation Act, where a statute confers power to make an appointment, that authority also has power to remove, suspend, reappoint, or reinstate any person appointed, subject to any limitations or qualifications affecting the power of appointment. This ancillary power is implied unless expressly excluded by the statute.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (5)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 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 & Another V HW Mayor Regina Bakitte Nakazzi Musoke & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 11 of 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 141 (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.