Wakilii

Kihika v Igeme Nabeta & 6 ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 88 of 2014)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 11 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of decision terminating applicant's position as Acting Managing Director of Uganda Broadcasting Corporation
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to respondents

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 judicial review was the proper avenue for challenging termination where the complaint concerned the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. However, the application failed because the Board and Minister acted within their statutory mandate under the Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Act 2005, no alternative remedies barred judicial review where High Court jurisdiction was invoked, but necessary parties were not served and the applicant failed to file submissions rendering relief unavailable.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

The applicant was appointed temporary manager of Uganda Broadcasting Corporation by the Minister of Information on 20 May 2011 following presidential directive. A new Board of Directors was appointed on 27 March 2014 and inaugurated on 10 July 2014. On 31 July 2014, the Board appointed a new Acting Managing Director and relieved the applicant of his duties. The handover occurred on 4 August 2014 in a public ceremony. The applicant sought judicial review arguing the Board acted ultra vires because it was appointed in contempt of a Constitutional Court interim order in an unrelated petition and that he was denied natural justice. The applicant failed to file written submissions despite court orders. The Constitutional Court later clarified that its interim order had not prevented appointment of a new Board or removal of the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was properly brought to court.
  2. Whether in the circumstances the applicant was unlawfully terminated from the position of Acting Managing Director of Uganda Broadcasting Corporation.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the orders sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Availability of Remedy — Alternative Remedies — High Court Jurisdiction
The unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court granted under Article 139(1) of the Constitution cannot be ousted by the granting of jurisdiction by statute to another body, including Labour Officers under the Employment Act or the Industrial Court.
Judicial Review — Appropriate Cases — Employment Termination — Decision-Making Process
Where a claim concerns not merely the termination decision itself but the process through which the decision was reached, including denial of a hearing and allegations that the decision was made without jurisdiction, judicial review is the appropriate remedy because judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision.
Administrative Law — Prerogative Orders — Proper Mode of Application
Under Rule 3 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, any person seeking prerogative orders of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction under section 38(2) of the Judicature Act must do so by way of judicial review by notice of motion.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Service on Interested Parties
Under Rule 6(2) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, notice of an application for judicial review must be served on all persons directly affected, including third parties who stand to lose rights or appointments if the application succeeds.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Damages — Types Recoverable
Rule 8 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 permits an award of damages on judicial review where damages are claimed in the motion and the court is satisfied that damages could have been awarded if the claim had been made in an ordinary action; nothing in the rule restricts recovery to special damages only.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (11)

  • Fuelex Uganda Limited v Attorney General & 2 ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2014)
  • R Vs Chief Constable of Merseuside Police Ex-parte Calveby & Others [1986] 1 ALL ER 257 at 263
  • Preston Vs IRC [1955] 2 ALL ER 327 at 330
  • Micro Care Insurance Limited v Uganda Insurance Commission (Miscellaneous Application No. 218 of 2009)
  • Hilda Musinguzi v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 124 of 2008)
  • Habre International Co. Ltd Vs Kassam and Others [1999] EA 125
  • David B. Kayondo v The Cooperative Bank (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Kyamanywa Andrew v IGG (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 243 of 2008)
  • Caroline Turyatemba & others v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamayire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Kampala University v National Council for Higher Education (Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kihika v Igeme Nabeta & 6 ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 88 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCD 11 (20 February 2015)
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.