Wakilii

Kaiga Mwebaze Solomon v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0190 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 114 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of university disciplinary decisions suspending applicant from studies
Decision
Disciplinary decisions quashed; matter remitted to university for proper proceedings within specified timelines

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 disciplinary proceedings suspending the applicant for two academic years were tainted with procedural impropriety. The court found three fundamental breaches: failure to comply with pre-hearing requirements under the University Rules on Examination Malpractices and Irregularities (no formal written notice of charges, no copy of rules provided, no opportunity for written defence); charging the applicant with non-existent offences under the rules; and the participation of a complainant/witness as a member of the disciplinary committee, creating actual bias. The court quashed the decisions and ordered the university to conduct proper proceedings within specified timelines.

Outcome

Disciplinary decisions quashed; matter remitted to university for proper proceedings within specified timelines

Facts

The applicant was a third-year Bachelor of Commerce student at Makerere University's College of Business and Management Sciences. On 13 May 2022, during an examination, he was suspected of examination malpractice and accused of attempting to assault an invigilator. He was removed from the examination room, detained at university police, and later released. He was summoned by phone to appear before the School Examination Malpractices Committee on 14 June 2022 but was not formally notified in writing of the charges or provided with the examination rules. The Committee found him guilty of contravening examination rules and recommended dismissal. On appeal, the College Examinations and Appeals Committee reduced the sanction to a two-year suspension. The University Academic Policies and Appeals Committee upheld this decision. The applicant challenged the decisions through judicial review, alleging illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before the Court for judicial review?
  2. Whether the decisions by the respondent were illegal, irrational and or procedurally improper?
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies claimed?

Orders

  • A declaration that the proceedings and decisions of respondent's organs leading to the suspension of the applicant from the University for two academic years were tainted with procedural impropriety.
  • An order of Certiorari doth issue quashing the proceedings and decisions of the University Academic Policies and Appeals Committee, which upheld the decision of the College Examinations and Appeals Committee; and the part of the proceedings of the School Examination Malpractices and Irregularities Committee that was not reversed on appeal.
  • An order of Mandamus doth issue directing the respondent to conduct proper proceedings against the applicant within sixty (60) days from the date of this order and, in case of appeal(s), to complete the entire process within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the first decision.
  • The costs of this application shall be paid to the applicant by the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Bodies — University Disciplinary Proceedings
For a matter to be amenable for judicial review, it must involve a public body in a public law matter. The court must be satisfied that the body under challenge is a public body whose activities can be controlled by judicial review, and that the subject matter involves claims based on public law principles and not the enforcement of private law rights.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality Distinguished from Procedural Impropriety
Illegality in judicial review refers to making a decision or doing an act without legal power to do so, acting without jurisdiction, or making an ultra vires decision. Failure to adhere to institutional rules of procedure constitutes procedural impropriety rather than illegality. Illegality concerns legislative instruments and provisions having force of law with general application, not institutional procedural rules.
Judicial Review — Irrationality — Proportionality of Sanctions — Self-Correction by Public Bodies
When exercising supervisory powers in judicial review, the court must scrutinize the entire decision-making process, not each decision in isolation. Where a first-level committee imposes a disproportionate sanction but an appellate committee within the same body reverses it, the reversal constitutes remedial action that eliminates the irrationality. The disciplinary mechanism within a public body is capable of self-correction, and an error not carried into the final decision cannot vitiate the entire process.
Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Pre-Hearing Requirements
Natural justice requires that a person accused must know the nature of the accusation, be given an opportunity to state their case, and that the tribunal act in good faith. Where university examination rules require formal written notice of allegations, provision of a copy of the rules, and an opportunity for written defence, failure to comply with these pre-hearing requirements constitutes a fundamental breach of natural justice that vitiates the proceedings.
Procedural Impropriety — Charging Non-Existent Offences
A disciplinary committee does not have the right to prefer charges over offences that do not exist in the applicable rules. Charging a person with non-existent offences constitutes procedural impropriety that vitiates the proceedings, and such a defect cannot be cured by subsequent appeals.
Natural Justice — Nemo Judex in Causa Sua — Bias — Complainant as Committee Member
The rule against bias requires impartiality on the part of the decision-maker and prohibits a person from being a judge in their own cause. Where a complainant or potential witness sits as a member of a disciplinary committee trying the accused, this creates actual or apprehended bias and constitutes procedural impropriety that vitiates the proceedings. Such a defect cannot be cured by subsequent appeals.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Damages — Additional Cause of Action Required
In judicial review, there is no right to claim damages for losses caused by unlawful administrative action. Damages may only be awarded if the applicant, in addition to establishing grounds for judicial review, establishes a separate cause of action (such as breach of statutory duty, misfeasance in public office, or a private action in tort) that would have entitled them to damages in a separate suit.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (14)

  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (1985) AC 375
  • Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimmire & Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew & Others v Attorney General & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2018)
  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 007 of 2016)
  • Smart Protus Magara & 13 Others v Financial Intelligence Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 215 of 2018)
  • Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987) AIR 2386
  • Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 762
  • Tweyambe Johnas & Anor v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 39 of 2019)
  • R v Architects' Registration Tribunal [1945] 2 All ER 131
  • R v Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1
  • X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaiga Mwebaze Solomon v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0190 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 114 (29 July 2025)
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.