Wakilii

Kakaire and Another v Parliamentary Commission and Clerk to Parliament (Misc. Cause No. 232 of 2013)

High Court · [2015] UGHC 35 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the suspension of journalists from Parliament
Decision
Suspension quashed; applicants granted access to Parliament

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 the suspension of two journalists from Parliament was ultra vires and violated their constitutional right to a fair hearing. The Public Relations Officer lacked authority to sign the suspension letter on behalf of the Clerk to Parliament without written delegation as required by the Administration of Parliament Act. The journalists, who were accredited and not strangers, were entitled to be heard before an independent body before any decision was made. The court issued certiorari quashing the suspension and prohibited Parliament from denying the applicants access to its precincts.

Outcome

Suspension quashed; applicants granted access to Parliament

Facts

The applicants were accredited journalists employed by The Observer Newspaper and members of the Uganda Parliamentary Press Association. On 28th January 2013, they were suspended from Parliament by letter signed by the Public Relations Officer on behalf of the Clerk to Parliament. The suspension followed publication of articles titled 'HOW KADAGA, OULANYA FOUGHT OVER PETITION' and 'HOUSE RECALL PETITIONERS STRIKE DEAL WITH KADAGA', which Parliament deemed inaccurate and damaging to the offices and persons of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The applicants were not summoned by the disciplinary committee of the Uganda Parliamentary Press Association before the suspension decision was made. The letter suspending them did not provide written authorization from the Clerk as required under Section 11 of the Administration of Parliament Act. The applicants challenged the suspension via judicial review on grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety, and violation of their constitutional rights to fair hearing and freedom of the press.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants were strangers without permission to be on the precincts of Parliament
  2. Whether the Public Relations Officer had the authority to sign the suspension letter on behalf of the Clerk to Parliament
  3. Whether the applicants' right to a fair hearing under Article 42 of the Constitution was violated
  4. Whether the decision to suspend the applicants was ultra vires

Orders

  • Declaration that the decision made by Parliament through the office of the Clerk to Parliament dated 28th January 2013 to suspend the applicants was ultra vires.
  • Order of certiorari issued quashing the suspension of the applicants by letter dated 28th January 2013.
  • Order prohibiting the respondents from denying the applicants access to the precincts of Parliament.
  • No declaration made regarding the guidelines for media coverage of Parliament due to absence of substantive submissions.
  • No award of damages as applicants did not show loss resulting from suspension.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality, Irrationality, and Procedural Impropriety
For an application to fall within the ambit of judicial review, three grounds need to be present: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Judicial review is a legal process of subjecting to judicial control the exercise of powers affecting people's rights and obligations enforceable at law by those in public offices.
Delegation of Authority — Requirements under Administration of Parliament Act
The Clerk to Parliament may delegate any function under the Administration of Parliament Act only by writing signed by the Clerk in consultation with the Speaker as required by Section 11 of the Administration of Parliament Act Cap 257. A decision made by a delegate without written authorization is made without proper authority and is void.
Right to Fair Hearing — Article 42 — Non-Derogable Right
The right to a fair hearing under Article 42 of the Constitution is a non-derogable right under Article 44(c) that cannot be done away with. Any person appearing before any administrative official or body has a right to be treated justly and fairly. Administrative bodies must accord persons appearing before them the opportunity to be informed of allegations, to respond to them before an independent body, and to have a decision made thereafter.
Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Right to Be Heard
The rule of natural justice obliges an adjudicator faced with the task of making a choice between two opposing stories to listen to both sides and not base a decision on hearing only one side. Equal opportunity must be given to both parties to present their cases or divergent viewpoints. Where a prejudicial decision has been made by a public authority in the course of exercise of its statutory authority without according a right to be heard, a writ of certiorari should often be freely granted by the court.
Freedom of the Press — Access to Parliament — Accredited Journalists
Accredited journalists who have been granted permission to report from Parliament are not strangers within the precincts of Parliament and are entitled to access Parliament in the exercise of their professional duties until such permission is lawfully withdrawn.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (5)

  • Nazarali Punjwani v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (HCCS No. 7 of 2005)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police Versus Evans [1982] 3 ALLER 141
  • Clear Channel Independent (U) Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Misc. App. No. 156 of 2006)
  • Kampala University v National Council for Higher Education (Misc. Cause No. 83 of 2014)
  • Kuluo Andrew & 2 Others v Attorney General & Others (HC Misc. Cause No. 106 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakaire and Another v Parliamentary Commission and Clerk to Parliament (Misc. Cause No. 232 of 2013) [2015] UGHC 35 (3 July 2015)
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.