Wakilii

Hon. Winfred Masiko & Ors v The DPP & Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No.220 of 2008) (Miscellaneous Cause No.220 of 2008)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 3 · 2009 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to apply for prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition by way of judicial review
Decision
Leave granted to apply for judicial review; matter stayed pending substantive hearing

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 granted leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review, finding that they had established a prima facie case. The applicants challenged the DPP's decision to prosecute them for embezzlement in relation to the Global Fund Project, alleging abuse of prosecutorial discretion, lack of jurisdiction of the Buganda Road Court, and abuse of court process. The court held that the allegations raised substantial matters warranting judicial review, including novel questions regarding the right to challenge the DPP's exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Outcome

Leave granted to apply for judicial review; matter stayed pending substantive hearing

Facts

The applicants were members or employees of Rugada Ltd, a company incorporated by guarantee that contracted with the Government of Uganda in 2004 to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria in four districts. In August 2008, the first applicant was summoned to CID headquarters for interrogation. Subsequently, in October 2008, the second, third, and fourth applicants were charged with embezzlement and related offences at Buganda Road Court and remanded to Luzira Prison. The applicants challenged the charges, contending that the Buganda Road Court lacked jurisdiction since the alleged offences occurred in Rukungiri, that the prosecution constituted abuse of process, and that no complaint had been made by Rugada Ltd, the alleged owner of the funds. The first applicant, a Member of Parliament, argued that the charges were calculated to demean and embarrass her.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have made out a prima facie case entitling them to leave to apply for judicial review.
  2. Whether the nature and seriousness of the complaints raised by the applicants warrant the grant of leave to apply for prerogative orders.

Orders

  • Leave granted to the applicants to apply for judicial review and seek prerogative orders of certiorari, prohibition, and any other appropriate reliefs.
  • This leave acts as a stay of all actions and processes relating to this matter until the substantive application for judicial review is heard and determined finally.
  • The applicants to file the application for judicial review not later than 14 days from today.
  • Costs of this application to abide by the outcome of the substantive application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Leave Application — Test for Granting Leave
In deciding whether to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the court must be satisfied that the applicant has presented material that, prima facie, entitles the applicant to be granted leave.
Judicial Review — Nature and Seriousness of Complaint
The nature and seriousness of the complaint raised by the applicant is a relevant consideration in determining whether to grant leave to apply for judicial review.
Administrative Law — Prerogative Orders — Purpose of Certiorari and Prohibition
One of the primary purposes of the prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition is the preservation of order in the legal system by preventing excesses and outright abuse of power.
Criminal Law & Procedure — DPP's Discretion to Prosecute — Justiciability
The exercise of the DPP's discretion to prosecute a suspect in a criminal court is a matter that may be subject to judicial review, and the right to challenge such discretion raises novel questions of significant importance in Ugandan law.
Judicial Review — Stay of Proceedings
Where leave to apply for judicial review is granted under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, such leave acts as a stay of all actions and processes relating to the matter until the substantive application is heard and determined.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature Act s.36
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. No.75 of 2003 r.4
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. No.75 of 2003 r.5(2)
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. No.75 of 2003 r.6(1)
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. No.75 of 2003 r.6(4)
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. No.75 of 2003 r.4(10)(a)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
  • Major M. L. Musyona And 4 others Vs. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of Kenya and 2 Others, Civil Appeal No.84 of 2000 (unreported)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon. Winfred Masiko & Ors v The DPP & Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No.220 of 2008) (Miscellaneous Cause No.220 of 2008) [2009] UGHC 3 (6 January 2009)
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.