Wakilii

Kaase v Makerere University & 3 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.205 OF 2018) 2019 UGHCCD 43 (2019-02-25)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 43 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking mandamus to compel compliance with Staff Appeals Tribunal orders
Decision
Mandamus issued directing Appointments Board to consider applicant's promotion within 30 days

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 held that Makerere University's Appointments Board was in contempt of the Staff Appeals Tribunal's order directing it to consider the applicant's promotion within 45 days. The court granted mandamus compelling the Appointments Board to implement the Tribunal's orders and consider the applicant's appointment to Senior Lecturer within 30 days, finding that the respondents had engaged in dilatory conduct and bad faith by repeatedly delaying consideration of the application beyond the prescribed timeline without justification.

Outcome

Mandamus issued directing Appointments Board to consider applicant's promotion within 30 days

Facts

Dr. Elizabeth Kaase Bwanga, a Lecturer at Makerere University's School of Women and Gender Studies, applied for promotion to Senior Lecturer. The College reviewed her application in March 2017, scoring her 75.5 points and recommending promotion based on her qualifications, publications, and service. The Appointments Board failed to consider her application for over seven months. She appealed to the Staff Appeals Tribunal, which on 14 June 2018 directed the Appointments Board to consider her application within 45 days. The University's legal officers only advised the relevant official on 25 July 2018—41 days after the Tribunal's order. Despite this directive, the Appointments Board continued to delay, claiming the application was undergoing vetting by external reviewers. The Board's term expired in December 2018 without a decision being made. The applicant then sought judicial review, arguing the respondents were in contempt of the Tribunal's orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of its Staff Appeals Tribunal, and if so, whether this conduct should be punished by the High Court as contempt of court.
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the declarations and orders being sought in the Application.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders of Mandamus being sought in the Application.
  4. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • An Order of mandamus is issued directing the 1st respondent's Appointments Board to comply with the statutory duty and implement the orders of the Staff Appeals Tribunal and consider the appointment of the applicant to the rank of Senior Lecturer within 30 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • The Appointments Board should determine the application with an open mind and make an informed decision that is not shrouded with vindictiveness of the applicant for challenging their dilatory conduct in handling her application.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Scope and Purpose — High Court Supervisory Jurisdiction over Tribunals
Judicial review is not concerned with the merits of a decision but with the decision-making process through which the decision was made. It is concerned with the court's supervisory jurisdiction to check and control the exercise of power by those in public offices or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions by the granting of prerogative orders.
Administrative Law — University Staff Tribunals — Binding Nature of Decisions
A University Staff Appeals Tribunal established under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act is a quasi-judicial body exercising judicial authority in determining staff members' civil rights and obligations. The University has a constitutional and statutory duty to comply with the Tribunal's orders; failure to do so constitutes contempt enforceable by the High Court.
Judicial Review — Mandamus — Requirements for Issuance
An applicant for an Order of Mandamus must establish: (a) a clear legal right and corresponding duty on the respondent; (b) that some specific act or thing which the law requires that particular officer to do has been omitted to be done; (c) lack of an alternative remedy; or (d) that an alternative exists but is inconvenient, less beneficial or totally ineffective.
Administrative Law — Delay in Administrative Action — Inordinate Delay as Ground for Intervention
Where a public body fails to act within prescribed timelines or within a reasonable time without justifiable reason, such inordinate delay contravenes basic principles of good governance, democracy, rule of law, social justice and human rights, and warrants judicial intervention. The courts may fill gaps in statutory timelines by ordering decisions be made within reasonable time to avoid abuse of authority.
Judicial Review — Court Powers — Power to Substitute Decision or Compel Action
A court vested with prerogative powers can in special circumstances substitute an erroneous decision with its own and take a decision where a public decision-maker has refused to take such a decision. The court can compel an appointments board to appoint or promote an applicant if the circumstances warrant.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (11)

  • 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 v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • Sansa Otim v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 258 of 2016)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v. Secretary General East African Community & 3 ORS EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2010 (First Instance Division)
  • University of Ilorin v. Stephen O. Akinola, Case No. 126/2008
  • Tribac (Pvt) Ltd v Tobacco Marketing Board [1996] 2 ZLR 52 (SC)
  • R vs Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R vs Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Kiryabwire & Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 783 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaase v Makerere University & 3 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.205 OF 2018) 2019 UGHCCD 43 (2019-02-25)
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.