Wakilii

Lukwago v Attorney General & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 281 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 94 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari, prohibition, and injunction to challenge a tribunal investigating a petition for removal of the Lord Mayor
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed except for direction that additional ground not in original petition must be struck out; tribunal may continue investigations subject to observance of natural justice principles

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

Judicial review application challenging tribunal investigating Lord Mayor removal petition largely dismissed. Court held tribunal properly constituted, Minister acted within statutory powers in appointing tribunal after evaluating petition in consultation with Attorney General. However, court directed that any additional ground not in original petition must be struck out. Court also held that while Authority can initiate removal petition despite incomplete membership, it must be fully constituted before passing any resolution to remove Lord Mayor. Tribunal must observe natural justice principles and allow applicant to cross-examine witnesses who testified in his absence.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed except for direction that additional ground not in original petition must be struck out; tribunal may continue investigations subject to observance of natural justice principles

Facts

The applicant, Lukwago Erias, was Lord Mayor of Kampala Capital City Authority. Sixteen councilors of the Authority submitted a petition to the Minister seeking his removal. The Minister evaluated the petition in consultation with the Attorney General, who found evidential weaknesses but did not advise against proceeding. The Minister appointed a tribunal to investigate the allegations. The applicant challenged the tribunal's establishment and proceedings, arguing that the Authority was not fully constituted (lacking four professional body representatives), that he was not heard before the tribunal was established, that the Attorney General's negative opinion should have prevented the tribunal's appointment, that no statutory instrument was gazetted, and that an additional ground was improperly added to the petition. The tribunal appointed support staff including lead counsel and secretary and commenced proceedings. The applicant withdrew a related constitutional petition before this application was heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was properly before the court.
  2. Whether the tribunal investigating the petition for removal of the Lord Mayor was properly established and constituted.
  3. Whether the charges before the tribunal were proper and sustainable.
  4. Whether the proceedings in the tribunal were regular.
  5. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Additional ground not contained in the original petition submitted to the Minister struck out and not sustainable for investigation.
  • Declaration that if tribunal finds prima facie case for removal, the Authority cannot proceed to pass resolution for removal unless fully constituted as provided under Section 6 of the Kampala Capital City Act.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Availability of Alternative Remedies
Judicial review is available where the statutory appeal remedy under Kampala Capital City Act s.12(20) does not apply because that provision only permits appeal after a Lord Mayor has been removed, not to challenge the propriety of the investigative process before removal.
Judicial Review — Joinder of Decision Maker
It is good practice to join the decision maker (a tribunal or public body) with the Attorney General in judicial review proceedings, as judicial review orders are directed at the decision-making body and the process it followed.
Statutory Bodies — Full Constitution — Prospective Application
Where a statutory body is not fully constituted as required by law, court decisions declaring it incapable of transacting business requiring participation of all members shall apply prospectively from date of judgment to avoid disruption of ongoing activities, but the body cannot subsequently pass decisions requiring full membership until properly constituted.
Ministerial Discretion — Evaluation of Petitions
When a Minister is required by statute to evaluate a petition in consultation with the Attorney General and, if satisfied there are sufficient grounds, to appoint an investigative tribunal, the Attorney General's role is consultative and the final decision whether to appoint the tribunal rests with the Minister alone, whose decision is not reviewable on its merits but only on the propriety of the decision-making process.
Administrative Decisions — Right to Be Heard
Not all administrative decisions require a hearing. Where a Minister's function of evaluating a petition and deciding whether to appoint an investigative tribunal is purely administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial, the subject of the petition has no right to be heard at the evaluation stage, though the right to fair hearing applies at the tribunal investigation stage.
Investigative Tribunals — Rules of Procedure and Natural Justice
Where no rules of procedure are prescribed by statute or statutory instrument for an investigative tribunal, the tribunal must adopt procedures that observe principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by the Constitution, and the right to cross-examine witnesses, though as an investigative body it may control proceedings to avoid unnecessary delays without sacrificing the right to be heard.
Scope of Review — Decision-Making Process versus Merits
In exercising supervisory powers under judicial review, court is not concerned with the merits or demerits of the decision in issue but with the decision-making process, and it is not the duty of the court to substitute its decision with that of the decision-making body or it would be accused of usurping the powers of those bodies under the guise of judicial review.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (12)

  • Housing Finance Co. Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc. Application No. 722 of 2005)
  • Uganda Group Industries Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (CS No. 5 of 2009)
  • Attorney General v Retired Dr. Col. Kiiza Besigye (HC Misc. Application No. 733 of 2005)
  • Peter Apell and 5 Others v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Misc. Application No. 78 of 2009)
  • Frank Sebowa V Attorney General
  • Magellan Kazibwe v Law Council (Misc. Application No. 1 of 2012)
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Others (Civil Application No. 353 of 2005)
  • Hon. Sam Kuteesa and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General and Auditor General (Misc. Application No. 125 of 2009)
  • Kulwo Joseph Andrew and 2 Others v Attorney General and 6 Others (Misc. Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] UKHL 10, [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Hon. Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Attorney General (HC Misc. Application No. 4 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukwago v Attorney General & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 281 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 94 (12 July 2013)
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.