Kayondo Latima v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 20 of 2025)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the judicial review application on preliminary objections. The court held that the applicant's supporting affidavit was incurably defective for containing hearsay and speculation without disclosed sources, rendering the application incompetent. The court further held that the application was a disguised representative suit brought without leave of court, contrary to Order 1 Rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and therefore an abuse of process.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on the merits

Facts

The applicant, a Law Development Centre student assigned to Mbale campus, challenged the respondent's decision to require all students to sit final examinations at Kampala campus. He had studied at Mbale for eight months when the directive was issued on 26 August 2025. The applicant argued the decision was made without consultation, would cause financial hardship through additional transport and accommodation costs, and was illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper. The respondent maintained the decision was within its statutory mandate under the Law Development Centre Act and the Rules Governing the Bar Course 2023, taken to ensure uniformity, minimize examination leakages, and promote transparency in assessing over 14,000 students across five campuses.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's affidavit in support was incurably defective for containing hearsay, conjecture, and argumentative statements contrary to Order 19 Rules 3(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the application was a disguised representative suit brought without leave of court contrary to Order 1 Rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. Whether the application offended Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution by seeking orders that would affect non-parties.
4. Whether the respondent's decision to centralize examinations at Kampala campus was illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper.

Orders

• Application dismissed for being incompetent and improperly before court.
• Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the applicant's affidavit struck out.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (20)

• Law Development Centre Act Cap 251 s.2
• Law Development Centre Act Cap 251 s.3(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.33
• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.38(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 Rule 8(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 3(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 3
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 3
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 3(1)(a)
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 3(4)
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 6
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 6(1)
• Rules Governing the Bar Course 2023 Rule 5(3)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 42
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 44

Cases cited (19)

• John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 78 of 2005)
• Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
• Abdu v Commissioner, Land Registration (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 16 of 2021)
• Kampala University v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Cause No. 5 of 2014)
• Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services Ltd [1969] EA 514
• Re Bukeni [1989] KALR 9
• Mangaru Ssekhubuge v Bazagwalla Francis (Election Petition Appeal No. 21 of 2018)
• Twinomugisha Augustine and Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 41 of 2020)
• Andama Richard v Tom and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 18 of 2017)
• Munezero Mike Kurungi and Blakes Jasper Muhanme v Law Development Centre and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 21 of 2019)
• Isingoma Michael v LDC Management Committee
• Makerere University v National Council for Higher Education (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
• Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
• The Cooperative Bank Ltd v Kasiko John [1983] HCB 72
• Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
• Barirunda v Bitakeise [1990-91] KALR 89
• Bitaitana v Kananura [1977] HCB 34
• Khalid Walusimbi v Bank of Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 198 of 2020)
• Lam Logoro v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2016)

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