Kigundu v Ndejje University (CIVIL SUIT NO. 109 OF 2015)

Observed later treatment

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 court held that while an exemption fees policy is not inherently unlawful, a university cannot impose retrospective fees not disclosed in admission letters. The admission letter constitutes an offer; its terms form the contract upon acceptance and payment. Students admitted without notice of exemption fees in their admission letters are not bound by later imposition of such fees. The university must set special examinations missed by students who declined to pay improperly imposed fees.

Outcome

Plaintiffs not liable for retrospectively imposed exemption fees; defendant ordered to set special examinations missed due to fee dispute

Facts

Nine plaintiffs, representing 233 Electrical and Civil Engineering students at Ndejje University's Kampala campus weekend program, were admitted between 2012 and 2014. Students with ordinary diplomas were admitted directly to second year; those with higher diplomas to third year. Their admission letters detailed all fees payable but made no reference to exemption fees. In January 2015, when second-intake students were in fourth year and third-intake in third year, the university issued an unsigned memo requiring payment of exemption fees (UGX 100,000 per exempted course unit for local students, UGX 150,000 for international students) for all units not studied. Students who declined to pay were barred from sitting exams. The university claimed an exemption fees policy existed since 2011 and that students were given policy documents on admission, but produced no evidence students received these documents. No evidence of prior circulars demanding exemption fees was tendered except the 2015 memo.

Issues

1. Whether the imposition of exemption fees by the defendant against the plaintiffs is unlawful or illegal.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay the exemption fees charged by the defendant.
3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

• The plaintiffs are not bound by the exemption fees policy as it was not stipulated in their admission letters.
• The plaintiffs are therefore not liable to pay the exemption fees under that policy.
• The defendant is under a duty under the Universities and Tertiary Institutions Act to set exams missed by the plaintiffs on account of this dispute.
• The defendant shall set the missed exams well before the next graduation ceremony to enable the plaintiffs participate in the graduation ceremony.
• The defendants are prohibited from imposing punitive fees on the plaintiffs for sitting these special exams.
• Costs of this suit to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Evidence Act s.101
• Contract Act 2010 s.3
• Contract Act 2010 s.4
• Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.121

Cases cited (4)

• Steinberg v Chicago Medical School 69 Ill 2d 320 [1977]
• University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v Babb 646 SW 2d 502 [1982]
• Mark Kamoga v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
• Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v CAR and General Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Nassolo and Others v Ruth Matovu and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022)
• Karangwa v Kulanju (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016)

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