Wakilii

Mabirizi v Deputy Speaker of Parliament & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 33 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 385 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari, prohibition and injunction relating to parliamentary disciplinary proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed with costs for lack of locus standi

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 the application for judicial review challenging Parliament's referral of Hon. Zaake Francis to the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline on the ground that the Applicant lacked locus standi. The court held that the Applicant had not shown sufficient or direct interest as he was neither a member of parliament nor a voter in Hon. Zaake's constituency.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs for lack of locus standi

Facts

On 12 October 2023, during the 37th session of the 224th meeting of the 11th Parliament, Hon. Juliet Kinyamatama raised a point of procedure concerning a video recording in which Hon. Zaake Francis allegedly used defamatory and demeaning words against her. The Deputy Speaker put a question to the House on whether the video should be played, which was agreed. After the video was played, the Deputy Speaker referred Hon. Zaake to the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline under Rule 175 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. The Applicant, Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka, brought a judicial review application challenging this referral on grounds that Hon. Zaake was not heard before the decision was made. The Applicant stated he had sufficient interest in good governance, democracy, rule of law and free political space in Uganda. He was at Parliament on that date to serve documents relating to another matter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi or sufficient interest to bring this application for judicial review

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Sufficient Interest
An applicant in a judicial review proceeding must have sufficient interest in the matter, meaning a direct or personal interest. A general concern in good governance, rule of law and free political space, without more, does not establish sufficient interest to bring judicial review proceedings where the applicant is not directly affected by the impugned decision.
Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Purpose of Standing Requirements
The purpose of the sufficient interest requirement in judicial review is to exclude busybodies and ensure that the gates of justice remain open only to parties who are directly and substantially affected, thereby saving courts from being overloaded with unwarranted cases.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction
Where the grounds of an application arise in Parliament situated in Kampala, the High Court of Uganda at Kampala, Civil Division, is the most appropriate forum to handle the matter rather than the High Court at Mbale.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Constitution of Uganda Articles 8A, 17(1)(a), 20(1), 29(1)(a), 29(1)(b), 29(1)(d), 29(1)(e), 29(2)(a), 38(1), 43(2), 139(1), 212, 213(4), 221
  • Constitution National Objectives & Directives Principles Paragraphs 1, 26, 29(a), 29(f)
  • Judicature Act sections 33, 36(1), 36(2), 39
  • Judicature (Amendment) Act 2002 s.3
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rules 1A(b), 3(a), 3(c), 3A, 6
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 Rule 3A
  • Rules of Procedure of Parliament Rule 175

Cases cited (4)

  • Muhumuza Ben v Attorney General & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2020)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 84 of 2021)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 194 of 2021)
  • [2015] MWHC 439

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mabirizi v Deputy Speaker of Parliament & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 33 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 385 (31 May 2024)
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.