Wakilii

Kiwanuka Bendicto Galiko v Democratic Party (Miscellaneous Cause 306 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 382 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the conduct of the Democratic Party's National Delegates Conference elections
Decision
Application partly allowed with declarations granted but remedies of certiorari and mandamus refused

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Democratic Party acted illegally by announcing office bearers from a pre-prepared list without conducting elections in accordance with its constitution, and acted with procedural impropriety by striking off the applicant's name from the list of candidates without affording him a fair hearing, despite his having fulfilled nomination requirements and paid nomination fees. The court granted declarations of illegality and procedural impropriety but declined to issue certiorari or mandamus as the affected office bearers were not joined as parties.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with declarations granted but remedies of certiorari and mandamus refused

Facts

The applicant, a member of the Democratic Party since 1990, expressed interest to contest for Secretary General. He picked nomination forms, filled them, returned them, and paid UGX 1,700,000 of the UGX 2,000,000 nomination fee. The party held its National Delegates Conference on 18-20 September 2020 at Sir Samuel Baker School, Gulu District. The applicant was not officially invited but attended through a tip from a friend. The Chairperson of the Electoral Commission struck off his name from the list of candidates and denied him the opportunity to declare his candidature to delegates. The Electoral Commission announced office bearers including Gerald Siranda as Secretary General. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Secretary General but no action was taken. The respondent contended the applicant was not an active member for the required three years and therefore not eligible to contest.

Issues

  1. Whether this application meets all the factors to be considered in an application for judicial review.
  2. Whether this application discloses any grounds for judicial review.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the decision of the Respondent to strike off the name of the Applicant from the list of candidates and to deny him to contest without giving him a fair hearing was procedurally improper.
  • A declaration that the decision of the Respondent to announce the name of office bearers of the Respondent from a pre-prepared list was illegal and in contravention of the constitution of the Respondent.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant half of the taxed bill of costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Sufficient Interest
A person who has expressed interest to contest for a political party office, picked nomination forms, filled them, returned them, and paid nomination fees acquires interests in the election process and the party's delegates conference, and has locus standi to bring an application for judicial review challenging decisions affecting those interests.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Political Parties as Public Bodies
A political party is a public body within the meaning of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009, and its actions, particularly those involving the conduct of internal elections and delegates conferences, involve public law functions and are amenable to judicial review.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Internal Remedies
Where an applicant lodges a complaint with the appropriate internal organ of a political party and no action is taken to address the complaint, and the respondent does not rebut this averment, the applicant is deemed to have exhausted the existing remedies available within the public body as required by Rule 7A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality — Failure to Conduct Elections According to Constitution
Where a political party announces office bearers from a pre-prepared list without conducting elections by secret ballot as required by its constitution, the party acts illegally and in contravention of its own constitution.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Procedural Impropriety — Fair Hearing
Where a political party accepts nomination forms and fees from a candidate but subsequently strikes off the candidate's name from the list of candidates and denies the candidate the opportunity to contest without affording the candidate a fair hearing, the party acts with procedural impropriety regardless of whether the candidate met eligibility requirements.
Judicial Review — Scope of Review — Merits versus Process
Judicial review is not concerned with the merits of a decision but rather with the decision-making process and whether the public body has acted lawfully. The question of whether a candidate met substantive eligibility requirements is a matter touching the merits and does not excuse a failure to afford the candidate a fair hearing before disqualification.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Damages — Requirement of Separate Cause of Action
In judicial review proceedings, damages may only be awarded if the applicant, in addition to establishing a cause of action in judicial review, establishes a separate cause of action related to the judicial review claim which would have entitled the applicant to damages in a separate suit, such as breach of statutory duty, misfeasance in public office, or a private action in tort.

Legislation cited (25)

  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.4
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.5
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.6
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7(4)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7A
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7A(2)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.8(1)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.2(f)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.9
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.10
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.12
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.17(c)
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.65
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.72
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.73(a)
  • Democratic Party Constitution Art.74(a)

Cases cited (17)

  • Nazziwa Resty v Mwesigye Bernice and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 360 of 2020)
  • M.M Sheikh Dawood v Kenshwala and Sons (High Court Civil Suit No. 14 of 2009)
  • Hon. Sekikubo Theodore and 2 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 092 of 2015)
  • Dickens Kagarura v Minister of Works and Transport and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 149 of 2012)
  • Liverpool Corporation, ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association [1972] 2 All ER 589
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Makerere University v St. Mark Education Institute Ltd and Others [1994] KALR 26
  • Eridadi Ahimbisibwe v World Food Programme and Others [1998] KALR 32
  • Kalyesubula Fenekansi v Luwero District Land Board and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 367 of 2011)
  • David Edward Ames v the Lord Chancellor and 2 Others [2018] EWHC 2250 (Admin)
  • R (Hopley) v Liverpool Health Authority [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of the Civil Service [1985] AC 174
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Others (Civil Application No. 78 of 2005)
  • Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • Short v Poole Corporation [1926] Ch 66
  • Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1
  • X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiwanuka Bendicto Galiko v Democratic Party (Miscellaneous Cause 306 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 382 (11 September 2023)
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.