Wakilii

Isamat Anor v The Governing Council of Uganada Institute of Allied and Management Sciences-Mulago (Formely Mulago Paramedical Traning Schools (Miscellanous Cause No. 005 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 61 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of administrative decisions by tertiary institution governing council
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed

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 the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court found that the dispute over dissolution of the guild leadership was academic as the term had expired and new leadership elected. The institution's decision to require students to interface with the Governing Council before registration was rational and legal under s.78(1) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act. Applicants failed to prove lack of effective notification as the General Circular was already in their possession when proceedings commenced. Quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by strict court procedures but must act fairly and give parties opportunity to be heard. Applicants' evidence was largely inadmissible hearsay as only the first applicant deposed to facts concerning other applicants' personal knowledge.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed

Facts

Fourteen students of Uganda Institute of Allied and Management Sciences-Mulago led by Guild President Moses Isamat applied for judicial review. In November 2012, students went on strike over grievances including power disconnection, inadequate accommodation, poor meals and maladministration. The institution closed on 20 November 2012. Upon reopening in January 2013, the governing council dissolved the guild leadership and required certain students including the applicants to interface with the council before registration. Some applicants were dismissed or referred to the Ministry of Education. By the time of hearing, six original applicants had withdrawn, the contested guild leadership term had expired, and a new guild president had been elected in April 2013. Only eight applicants remained.

Issues

  1. Whether the actions by the respondent of dissolving the student leadership headed by the 1st applicant was rational, legal and procedurally proper.
  2. Whether the decision of the respondent requiring some of the students to interface with the Governing Council before embarking on registration exercise was rational and legal.
  3. Whether the decision of the respondent to dismiss the 7th, 8th and 10th applicants from the institution and referring the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 12th applicants to the Ministry of Education for further consideration was rational, legal and procedurally proper.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Mootness — Academic Issues
Courts adjudicate only on issues which actually exist between litigants and not academic ones because court orders must have practical effect and must be capable of enforcement. Where the matter complained of has been overtaken by time and events, the application becomes academic.
Quasi-Judicial Bodies — Standards of Procedure — Natural Justice
The mode of service of communication and conduct of proceedings expected of quasi-judicial bodies is not identical to service of court process and court trials. Quasi-judicial bodies can obtain information in any way they think best, provided they act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, giving a fair opportunity to correct or contradict relevant statements prejudicial to a party's view.
Tertiary Institution Management — Strike Management Powers
Under s.78(1) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001, a tertiary institution's governing council has general mandate to manage student strikes provided it acts fairly in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, including giving affected students opportunity to interface with the council and present their side of the story.
Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Personal Knowledge
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except where the affidavit is in respect of an interlocutory matter. Where facts relate to direct personal knowledge such as receipt of phone calls or personal letters, another person is not in a position to depose upon such facts. Evidence from a person other than the actual recipient is clearly hearsay evidence and is inadmissible under Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Affidavit Evidence — Representative Depositions
It is gravely erroneous for one person to purport to make an affidavit on behalf of other applicants. Each applicant has the obligation to make their own affidavits in proof of the facts relating to their specific situations rather than purporting to inform another deponent.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • The Environment Action Network Ltd & Eryau (Civil Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Yustus Tinkasimire and 18 Others v Attorney General and Dr. Malinga Stephen (Miscellaneous Cause No. 35 of 2012)
  • Board of Education v Rice [1911] AC 179
  • Mubiru Charles v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isamat Anor v The Governing Council of Uganada Institute of Allied and Management Sciences-Mulago (Formely Mulago Paramedical Traning Schools (Miscellanous Cause No. 005 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 61 (28
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.