Wakilii

Kigezi Steel Company Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 139 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 23 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and declarations arising from cancellation of mining lease by Minister of Energy and Mineral Development
Decision
Application dismissed for being filed out of time. Applicant granted liberty to seek leave by properly setting out grounds for delay.

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

An application for judicial review must be filed within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose, unless the court considers there is good reason for extending the period. Where an applicant seeks enlargement of time in an omnibus application but fails to set out reasons in the application itself, relying instead on submissions, the court has no basis to exercise discretion. Time limits in statutes are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application filed outside the limitation period absent a proper application for extension of time.

Outcome

Application dismissed for being filed out of time. Applicant granted liberty to seek leave by properly setting out grounds for delay.

Facts

Kigezi Steel Company Limited held mining lease ML0594 granted on 13 June 2011 to mine iron ore in Kabale District for 21 years. The Commissioner for Geological Survey and Mines cancelled the lease on 26 February 2020 for non-compliance including failure to pay annual mineral rent of UGX 97,980,000, failure to observe working obligations, and failure to submit required documentation. The applicant applied for administrative review to the Minister who set aside the cancellation on 18 September 2020 on conditions including submission of revised mining operation plan, feasibility study, registered MOU for funding, and payment plan for UGX 128,680,000 arrears within six months. A field visit on 11 February 2021 found no activity on site, piles of iron ore stationary for two years, and continued default in payment. On 3 January 2023, the Ministry issued a notice of cancellation requiring remedy within 30 days. After a meeting on 28 January 2023 and consideration of the applicant's response dated 30 January 2023, the Minister revoked the lease on 6 April 2023 pursuant to section 159 of the Mining and Minerals Act. The applicant filed this judicial review application on 1 September 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was filed within the time prescribed by the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review filed outside the statutory limitation period without an application for extension of time properly supported by grounds.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed for being time barred.
  • No order as to costs.
  • The applicant is at liberty to seek leave by setting out the main grounds for the delay.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Three-Month Limitation Period — Commencement of Time
The three-month limitation period for filing an application for judicial review under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 runs from the date when the grounds of the application first arose, which is the date of the decision impugned, not from the date when the applicant became aware of the decision.
Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Grounds Must Be Pleaded in Application
Where an applicant seeks extension of time to file a judicial review application out of time, the grounds for the delay must be set out in the application itself, not merely advanced in oral or written submissions. Evidence at the bar cannot cure the absence of pleaded grounds in the application.
Judicial Review — Time Limits — Mandatory Nature — Substantive Law
Time limits set by statutes for judicial review applications are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. Their overriding purpose is that litigation shall be automatically stifled after a particular length of time, irrespective of the merits of the particular case.
Judicial Review — Jurisdiction — Time-Barred Applications
A court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review which is filed outside the statutory limitation period in the absence of a proper application for extension of time. An omnibus application seeking enlargement of time without supporting grounds does not confer jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (5)

  • Stop and See vs Tropical Africa Bank
  • Sheena Imra Ahmed v Edmond Musoke (Miscellaneous Application No. 406 of 2020)
  • Open Forum Initiative (TOFI) v Attorney General and Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 77 of 2022)
  • IP Mugumya v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 116 of 2015)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal (Court of Appeal) No. 31 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kigezi Steel Company Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 139 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 23 (14 February 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.