Wakilii

Makerere University v Makerere University Staff Appeals Tribunal and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 285 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 124 · 2024 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking to quash decision of University Staff Appeals Tribunal ordering reinstatement of employee
Decision
Application for judicial review granted; Tribunal's decision of 1 March 2023 quashed; related contempt application overtaken by events

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 held that the University has standing to seek judicial review of the Staff Tribunal's decision despite statutory language suggesting only staff may do so, as excluding the University would violate equality before the law. The Tribunal's decision was quashed for multiple illegalities: the appeal was filed outside the 14-day statutory limit; the Tribunal exceeded the 45-day timeline for determination; it granted ex parte orders without proper procedure; and most critically, it usurped the Appointments Board's statutory power to confirm staff by ordering reinstatement of a probationary employee who had not been confirmed.

Outcome

Application for judicial review granted; Tribunal's decision of 1 March 2023 quashed; related contempt application overtaken by events

Facts

Dr. Malowa Davis Ndayi was appointed Director Human Resources at Makerere University on a probationary contract for six months. After failing his initial performance appraisal, he consented to a six-month extension of probation. On 4 May 2022, the Appointments Board terminated his probationary contract without confirmation. He received all terminal benefits and vacated office. The 2nd respondent appealed to the University Staff Appeals Tribunal on 11 May 2022 (notice) and filed a memorandum of appeal on 23 June 2022. The Tribunal granted ex parte interim orders preventing advertisement of the position and ordering the 2nd respondent maintained on payroll. On 1 March 2023, more than nine months after the appeal was filed, the Tribunal set aside the termination and ordered the 2nd respondent's reinstatement with salary arrears. The University applied for judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is fit for judicial review despite statutory provision appearing to limit standing to members of staff only
  2. Whether the decision of the Makerere University Staff Tribunal was marred with illegalities, procedural impropriety and irrationality
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • An Order of Certiorari doth issue quashing the ruling and orders of the 1st respondent dated 1st March 2023 in which the 1st respondent ordered the reinstatement of the 2nd respondent into the service of the applicant and payment of salary arrears.
  • Each party shall bear its costs.
  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 0117 of 2023 (contempt application) is overtaken by events since the ruling and orders sought to be implemented have been set aside and quashed.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Standing — Right to Apply — Equality Before the Law
Where a statute appears to limit judicial review standing to only one class of parties (employees) in proceedings involving a public body, the court will not enforce such limitation where it violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law; both parties to tribunal proceedings must have equal access to judicial review to challenge abuse of power.
Tribunals — Statutory Time Limits — Compliance — Effect of Breach
Where a statute prescribes a mandatory timeline for a tribunal to render its decision (45 days), failure to comply with such timeline constitutes a breach of the enabling statute and renders the decision ultra vires; statutes of limitation are strict and inflexible enactments that must be observed in the interests of finality and good administration.
Appeals to Tribunals — Time Limits for Filing — Non-compliance
An appeal to a university staff tribunal that is filed outside the 14-day statutory period prescribed by the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.57(1) is incompetent; time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with.
Tribunals — Exercise of Discretion — Exceeding Jurisdiction
A university staff appeals tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.57(2) may confirm, vary, amend or set aside decisions, but cannot usurp the statutory powers of the Appointments Board to confirm staff appointments; ordering reinstatement of a probationary employee who has not been confirmed by the appointing authority constitutes an ultra vires exercise of discretion.
Natural Justice — Ex Parte Orders — Procedural Fairness
Where a tribunal grants ex parte interim orders by way of a letter without affording the opposite party an opportunity to be heard and without clear procedural guidance on how to respond, such procedure violates natural justice and constitutes procedural impropriety warranting judicial review.
Probationary Employment — Termination — Authority to Confirm
The power to confirm employees from probationary to permanent status is vested in the appointing authority (Appointments Board); a tribunal hearing an appeal from termination during probation cannot order reinstatement with confirmed status as this amounts to making an appointment decision reserved to the appointing authority.
Judicial Review — Irrationality — Award of Salary Arrears
A tribunal decision ordering payment of salary arrears to a probationary employee who was not confirmed and did not work during the relevant period is irrational and constitutes wrongful exercise of authority; decisions must be rationally related to the purpose for which the power was given.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (11)

  • Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India [1980] 3 SCC 625
  • Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism v Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Limited [2004] 7 BCLR 687 (CC)
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA In Re: Ex Parte Application of President of the RSA [2000] 3 BCLR 241 (CC)
  • Jackson v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General East African Community and 3 Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2010)
  • Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael and 37 Others v Attorney General (HCCS No. 21 of 2012)
  • Hilton versus Sultan Steam Laundry (1964) 161, 81 per Lord Greene
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Re Application by Mustapha Ramathan for Orders of Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1996)
  • R v Aston University Senate ex parte Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makerere University v Makerere University Staff Appeals Tribunal and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 285 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 124 (12 August 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.