Wakilii

Kiganda v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause 133 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 37 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking order of mandamus to compel implementation of university tribunal orders
Decision
Application for mandamus to compel implementation of tribunal orders dismissed

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 the respondent university's failure to implement a staff tribunal's order appointing the applicant was not contempt where the implementation was constrained by public finance law prohibiting expenditure without approved budget and activity, the position had been filled three years earlier, and the applicant had scored below the required pass mark. Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for mandamus to compel implementation of tribunal orders dismissed

Facts

Applicant, employed by Makerere University since 2010, applied for two positions in 2018 but scored 50 per cent, below the 60 per cent pass mark. He appealed to the university's Staff Appeals Tribunal which on 17 August 2021 ordered the Appointments Board to appoint him as Principal Registrar, finding he was treated unfairly. The university did not implement the order, arguing the position had been filled in 2018, there was no vacant post or wage, and implementation would breach public finance laws. Applicant wrote several times requesting implementation, then brought this judicial review application in September 2022 seeking mandamus and damages totaling over UGX 410 million. The university raised preliminary objections on time limits and non-exhaustion of remedies.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent is in contempt of the Tribunal's orders, and if so, whether this application raises any issues for judicial review.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Extension of Time
An application for judicial review must be brought immediately when a decision is made, or at least within three months of the date of the decision, and once time has run out for an applicant, subsequent developments cannot revive it, though a judge may extend time where evidence shows good reasons that prevented timely filing.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Flexible Application
Where no remedies are available at all to exhaust, the rule on exhaustion of local remedies must be resolved in favour of the applicant, and it would be unfair to penalise an applicant for not exhausting remedies from a tribunal where evidence shows the respondent did not reply to requests for compliance.
Judicial Review — Illegality — Elements of Contempt of Tribunal Orders
For contempt of a tribunal's orders to be established, there must be an order of the tribunal, the persons against whom it was made must be aware of it, the person must have disobeyed it, and the failure to comply must have been deliberate, unjustified, and done with mala fides.
University Tribunal Orders — Public Finance Constraints — Implementation
A university's failure to implement a staff tribunal's order appointing a candidate who scored below the required pass mark is not contempt where the decision is constrained by public finance legislation prohibiting expenditure without an approved budget and activity, the position has already been filled, and implementation would create personal liability for the accounting officer and risk of similar claims by other unsuccessful candidates.
Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act — Tribunal Decisions — Right to Judicial Review
The phrase 'a member of staff' in section 57(3) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, allowing judicial review of tribunal decisions, cannot extinguish the right of the university to challenge tribunal decisions under ordinary rules of judicial review, as any person can challenge a decision of a public body where sufficient interest is demonstrated.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (23)

  • Dr. Elizabeth Kaase v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 205 of 2018)
  • Ssempebwa and Others v Attorney General [2019] 1 EA 549
  • Geoffrey Odongo & Ors v Francis Atoke and Raymond Ayebazibwe v Barclays Bank & Ors Miscellaneous Application No. 283 of 2012
  • Nicholson v England [1926] 2 KB 93
  • Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board: HL 22 October 1987
  • Attorney General of Uganda v General David Sejusa (Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2016)
  • Kilama-Lajul v Uganda Coffee Development Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 270 of 2019)
  • In the matter of an application for Judicial Review by Dawson Kadope v Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) CV-CS-MC-0040-2019
  • Ekau v Dr. Aceng (Miscellaneous Application No. 746 of 2018)
  • Microcare Insurance Limited v Uganda Insurance Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 218 of 2009)
  • Classy Photo Mart Limited v Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2009)
  • Oyaro John Owiny v Kitgum Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2018)
  • Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
  • Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB, 228
  • Credit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council [1997] QB 306
  • Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935
  • Lukyamuzi v Attorney General Electoral Commission (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General, URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Erasmus Masiko v John Imaniraguha, Christopher Mulenga and Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 1481 of 2016)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • In the Matter of Collins Odumba [2016] eKLR
  • Johnson v Grant 1923 SC 789
  • James Kisoro v Makerere University and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 162 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiganda v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause 133 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 37 (23 February 2024)
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.