Wakilii

Lubowa and 4 Others v Uganda Journalist Association(UJA) and 2 Others (Misc Cause 31 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 221 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging exclusion from nomination process for association elections
Decision
Application dismissed; respondents entitled to compensation under Civil Procedure Act s.65 for temporary injunction erroneously obtained

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 dismissed an application for judicial review challenging the exclusion of applicants from nomination for elections in the Uganda Journalist Association. The court held that the first respondent, a private company limited by guarantee registered under the Companies Act, is not a public body susceptible to judicial review. Judicial review jurisdiction extends only to public bodies and officials exercising public functions as defined in the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019. A voluntary membership association with no statutory regulatory powers does not constitute a public body merely because it brings together professionals through subscription.

Outcome

Application dismissed; respondents entitled to compensation under Civil Procedure Act s.65 for temporary injunction erroneously obtained

Facts

The applicants, five journalists and members of the Uganda Journalist Association (UJA), sought to stand for elective positions in the association's elections scheduled for 25 February 2023. They picked nomination forms, paid fees, and submitted required documents. On 3 February 2023, the second and third respondents (the association's President and Secretary General) notified the applicants by email that they had not satisfied the vetting committee, specifically that they had not been full members for at least two years before the AGM as required by guidelines adopted in December 2020. The applicants claimed they never appeared before any vetting committee and were denied a fair hearing. They also alleged bias because the second and third respondents were themselves candidates in the same election they were organising. The court issued a temporary injunction stopping the electoral process pending determination of the main cause. The first respondent is a private company limited by guarantee registered in 1983 under the Companies Act, with membership by subscription.

Issues

  1. Whether the matter is amenable for judicial review?
  2. Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the matter before court?
  3. Whether the impugned actions are tainted with illegality, procedural impropriety, bias or unfairness?
  4. Whether the applicants are entitled to remedies sought?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • Respondents entitled to compensation under section 65 of the Civil Procedure Act for the temporary injunction erroneously obtained by the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Body — Private Company Limited by Guarantee
A private company limited by guarantee registered under the Companies Act, whose membership is voluntary by subscription and which has no statutory regulatory powers, does not constitute a public body susceptible to judicial review merely because it brings together professionals in a particular field.
Judicial Review — Definition of Public Body — Statutory Test
The definition of a public body for purposes of judicial review is a question of law determined by the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 Rule 3, which requires either establishment by statute, exercise of statutory powers, or administration of public funds or property, and excludes bodies whose sole source of power is consensual submission to jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Scope of Judicial Review — Judicial Resources
Courts must be mindful of judicial review case load and the proper allocation of scarce judicial resources when determining whether a class of body is susceptible to judicial review, and should not open the doors to all manner of bodies that do not exercise public functions.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (2)

  • Dr. Wilberforce Wandera Kifudde v National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank (NAGRC & DB) and 2 Others (HCMC No. 82 of 2020)
  • Ex p. Football League Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 833

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubowa and 4 Others v Uganda Journalist Association(UJA) and 2 Others (Misc Cause 31 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 221 (14 July 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.