Wakilii

Kigezi Highland Tea Co. Ltd and Another v National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS) (Miscellaneous Cause No.287 of 2016)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 249 · 2018 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the respondent's decision to exclude District Local Governments from working with the applicants as lead agencies under memoranda of understanding for a tea development project
Decision
Judicial review application allowed; respondent's decision quashed; prohibition issued

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 respondent's decision to direct District Local Governments to exclude the applicants as lead agencies in the tea development project was illegal and unlawful as it fettered the discretion of the District Local Governments and amounted to a change of government policy implemented without consultation. The court granted certiorari to quash the decision and prohibition to restrain further interference with the memoranda of understanding.

Outcome

Judicial review application allowed; respondent's decision quashed; prohibition issued

Facts

The applicants, Kigezi Highland Tea Co. Ltd and Kinkiizi Development Co. Ltd, entered into memoranda of understanding with several District Local Governments to act as lead agencies in a tea development project funded by the respondent NAADS. The memoranda provided for a three-year term renewable upon satisfactory implementation. On 22nd September 2016, the respondent wrote to Chief Administrative Officers of six districts directing them to procure tea seedlings in adherence to PPDA regulations and explicitly stating that the new arrangement did not provide for previous arrangements involving the lead agency. The applicants had invested heavily in the project, including constructing a tea factory in Kanungu District and planning factories in Kabale and Kisoro at a cost of USD 3 million. The applicants were not consulted before the respondent issued the directives. The applicants sought judicial review challenging the legality of the respondent's decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's decision communicated on 22nd September 2016 to exclude District Local Governments from working with the applicants as lead agencies under memoranda of understanding was irregular, illegal, an abuse of authority, unfair, made in error and null and void.
  2. Whether the decision communicated on 22nd September 2016 to exclude the lead agency from procurement arrangements amounted to a change of government policy.
  3. Whether an order of certiorari should issue to quash the respondent's decision communicated on 22nd September 2016.
  4. Whether the respondent's decision interfered with the implementation of the subsisting memoranda of understanding between the applicants and District Local Governments.
  5. Whether the applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • A declaratory order that the respondent's decision communicated on 22nd September 2016 is, as far as it purports to exclude District Local Governments of Kabale, Kisoro, Kanungu, Rukungiri, Ntungamo and Mitooma from working with the applicants who are lead agencies under memoranda of understanding, null and void, illegal and unlawful.
  • An order of certiorari to quash the respondent's decision communicated on 22nd September 2016 that purports to exclude District Local Governments from working with the applicants as lead agencies under memoranda of understanding for the Tea Development Project.
  • An order of prohibition against the respondent restraining her from further interfering with the implementation of the subsisting memoranda of understanding entered into between the applicants and the respective District Local Governments of Kabale, Kisoro, Kanungu, Rukungiri, Ntungamo and Mitooma.
  • Application allowed with costs against the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality — Fettering of Discretion
A public authority acts unlawfully when it issues directives that have the effect of fettering the discretion of another statutory body, preventing that body from exercising its discretion to consider each individual case on its merits and to honour existing contractual obligations.
Legitimate Expectation — Change of Policy — Procedural Protection
Before a public body changes a policy that adversely affects persons who have legitimate expectations arising from the existing policy, procedural protection requires that such persons be accorded consultation and notice. A change of policy implemented without consultation with affected stakeholders may be challenged as a denial of substantive legitimate expectation.
Remedies — Certiorari — Quashing Ultra Vires Decisions
The primary purpose of certiorari is to quash an ultra vires decision. The effect of granting an order of certiorari is to establish that a decision is ultra vires, to set the decision aside, and to retrospectively invalidate it, depriving it of legal effect since its inception.
Exercise of Public Power — Duty to Act Lawfully and Within Jurisdiction
The fundamental principle of judicial review is that courts will intervene to ensure that the powers of public decision-making bodies are exercised lawfully, within the jurisdiction conferred, in accordance with fair procedures, and in a reasonable manner. If a decision-maker exercises powers outside the conferred jurisdiction, in a procedurally irregular manner, or unreasonably, the decision-maker is acting ultra vires and therefore unlawfully.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (9)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682
  • R.(Niazi) v Home Secretary [2008] EWCA Civ 755
  • Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363
  • Cocks vs Thanet District council [1983] 2 AC 286
  • R vs Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R vs Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kigezi Highland Tea Co. Ltd and Another v National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS) (Miscellaneous Cause No.287 of 2016) [2018] UGHCCD 249 (4 September 2018)
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.