Wakilii

In The Matter of an Application for Order of Certiorari and Prohibition by Mustapha Ramathan v Honourable Minister of Finance and Economic Planning (Miscellaneous Application 230 of 1996)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 106 · 1996 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition under sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Judicature Act 1967
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant not granted leave to apply for prerogative writs

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 an ex parte application for leave to apply for prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition. The application for certiorari against the Minister of Finance was time-barred under section 34(6) of the Judicature Act, having been filed more than six months after the impugned decision. The court further held that prerogative jurisdiction cannot be invoked where a statutory right of appeal exists under section 14 of the Expropriated Properties Act. Applications for certiorari and prohibition against the Commissioner for Land Registration were refused as the Commissioner merely followed statutory authority with no decision-making discretion, and because prohibition cannot prevent acts already completed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant not granted leave to apply for prerogative writs

Facts

Mustapha Ramathan, a former government minister, was registered as proprietor of Plot 5 Mackenzie Vale in November 1974, having purchased the property from the Departed Asian Custodian Board. Following enactment of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, the former owner Tajdin Alidina Valimohamed successfully claimed the property. On 16 October 1995, the Minister of Finance issued a repossession order to the former owner. The Commissioner for Land Registration registered the former owner as proprietor on 3 November 1995. The applicant remained in physical possession but was never compensated for loss of his proprietary interest. On 25 April 1996, the applicant filed an ex parte application seeking leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition against the Minister, the Commissioner, and the former owner, and for a temporary injunction to restrain the former owner from taking possession.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to apply for certiorari against the Minister of Finance when the application was filed outside the six-month statutory time limit under section 34(6) of the Judicature Act.
  2. Whether the prerogative jurisdiction of the court can be invoked when a statutory right of appeal under section 14 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 is available.
  3. Whether writs of certiorari and prohibition can issue against the Commissioner for Land Registration who acted pursuant to statutory authority under the Expropriated Properties Act.
  4. Whether a writ of prohibition can issue to prevent acts already completed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant may seek other remedies other than the prerogative writs for which leave was sought.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Certiorari — Time Limitation — Six-Month Statutory Period
Leave to apply for an order of certiorari to remove proceedings for the purpose of quashing shall not be granted unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of the proceedings, as required by section 34(6) of the Judicature Act 1967 and rule 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Rules of Court) Rules. This time limit is mandatory.
Administrative Law — Prerogative Remedies — Availability of Statutory Appeal
The prerogative jurisdiction of the court cannot ordinarily be invoked where a statutory remedy by way of appeal is available. Where legislation provides a right of appeal, that statutory remedy must be exhausted before resort to prerogative writs.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Administrative Acts Without Discretion
Writs of certiorari and prohibition are not applicable against a public officer who merely follows statutory provisions without taking any decision in proceedings or exercising any discretion. Where a statute mandates a specific action upon presentation of prescribed authority, the officer takes no decision in the strict sense apart from following the law.
Judicial Review — Prohibition — Nature as Preventive Remedy
Prohibition is by its nature a preventive remedy, not a corrective one. Except where the act complained of is continuous, prohibition is irrelevant after the act is complete because there is nothing left to prohibit. It cannot prevent acts already completed.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • Re An application by Gideon Wawern Gatunguri [1962] E.A. 520
  • Re An Application by The Attorney General of Tanganyika [1958] E.A. 482
  • Kantibhai Aryat Kantibhai Maribha Patel v Minister of Finance & Economic Planning (Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In The Matter of an Application for Order of Certiorari and Prohibition by Mustapha Ramathan v Honourable Minister of Finance and Economic Planning (Miscellaneous Application 230 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 106 (21 May 1996)
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.