Wakilii

Kabenge v Uganda Law Society & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 254 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 9 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking to challenge the election of Uganda Law Society office bearers
Decision
Application dismissed with costs on all preliminary objections

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 judicial review is not the appropriate procedure for challenging the outcome of an election. The election of Uganda Law Society office bearers is not an administrative act and the annual general meeting does not constitute an administrative body. Elections must be challenged by plaint or petition under ordinary civil procedure. The motion was also incompetent for seeking constitutional declarations in the High Court and claiming punitive and exemplary damages which require extensive evidential proof unsuitable for judicial review proceedings. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs on all preliminary objections

Facts

Simon Tendo Kabenge, an advocate and member of the Uganda Law Society, was one of three candidates nominated for the position of president at the ULS Annual General Meeting held on 22-23 March 2013. Moses Adriko was elected as returning officer by the meeting. Ruth Sebatindira was elected president with 447 votes, while Kabenge received 4 votes and Richard Lumu received 17 votes. During the nomination process, a point of order was raised querying Kabenge's candidature because he had filed Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2013 against the Uganda Law Society seeking damages. The voting was conducted by the customary method of dividing the hall into three divisions representing each candidate, with members congregating in areas designated for their preferred candidate. Kabenge then applied for judicial review seeking declarations that the election was illegal, that it was conducted in contravention of law, and orders directing all elected office bearers to vacate office.

Issues

  1. Whether judicial review is an incompetent procedure for challenging an election.
  2. Whether the motion is incompetent because it seeks constitutional declarations in the High Court in addition to award of punitive and exemplary damages.
  3. Whether a general meeting of the respondent does not constitute an administrative body and therefore the outcome of such a meeting is not amenable to judicial review.
  4. Whether the action of electing an organization's officer is not an administrative act.
  5. Whether the applicant did not appear before the AGM for any administrative action to be taken in respect of him such that the meeting constituted an administrative proceeding or quasi-judicial act amenable to judicial review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Appropriate cases — Election disputes
Judicial review is not an appropriate procedure for challenging the outcome of an election because Section 36 of the Judicature Act and Rule 3 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 do not provide that judicial review is for purposes of challenging election outcomes.
Judicial Review — Limits of review — Merits
A court exercising judicial review powers is not entitled to consider merits. Matters contesting the merits of something done have to be proved by extensive evidence at trial and cannot adequately be accomplished through judicial review which is intended to be a summary procedure.
Administrative Law — Administrative bodies — What constitutes
For an act or decision to be amenable to judicial review, that act or decision must be that of an administrative body. A general meeting of members of an organisation does not constitute an administrative body and the action of electing an organisation's officers is not an administrative act amenable to judicial review.
Civil Procedure — Election petitions — Proper procedure
In the absence of any provision expressly providing how a particular election may be challenged, applicants or complainants should file a plaint under Order IV rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional Court jurisdiction — Constitutional declarations and interpretation
Where a claim for redress for violation of a right or freedom is subject to interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, the claim should be via the Constitutional Court under Article 137 by petition. Where the claim is in respect of a right or freedom that is clearly protected, it should be by plaint in any other competent court.
Judicial Review — Damages — Types of damages awardable
An application for judicial review cannot support a claim for general, punitive, or exemplary damages. The type of damages envisaged under Rule 8 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 are those that do not require detailed material facts or necessary particulars, namely special damages only.
Administrative Law — Election of officers — Individual voting decisions
Holding an election and voting does not constitute an administrative decision. During an election each member casts a vote independently without direction, pressure, or involvement of the organisation as a body, and the decision to elect a contestant is in reality an individual decision, not an administrative act.

Legislation cited (27)

Cases cited (1)

  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General and 2 others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabenge v Uganda Law Society & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 254 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 9 (23 January 2014)
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.