Wakilii

Mike Mawejje v Hon Dr Sam Mayanja and Others [2026] UGHCCD 235

High Court · 2026 Application Struck Out (Time Barred) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review by notice of motion seeking certiorari, mandamus, declarations, a permanent injunction, damages and costs against a Minister and police
Decision
Application for judicial review struck out as time barred; 3rd respondent struck off; merits not considered

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 court held that decisions of the Minister of State for Lands, taken in his official capacity, and of the Inspector General of Police are amenable to judicial review under rule 7A(1)(c) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019, but that a private individual who is not a public official cannot be a respondent and was struck off. No internal remedies existed to be exhausted. However, the grounds arose on 14 October 2022 and became actionable on 18 October 2022, so the application filed on 27 February 2023 was outside the three-month limit in rule 5(1). No application for enlargement of time having been made, the application was struck out without considering the merits.

Outcome

Application for judicial review struck out as time barred; 3rd respondent struck off; merits not considered

Facts

The applicant and a co-purchaser became registered proprietors in 2004 of mailo land at Mpegwe, Kakiri, acquired following a mortgage sale involving NPART. The 3rd respondent's earlier suit, High Court Civil Suit No. 239 of 2012, was dismissed as time barred, and subsequent applications for review and revision failed. In October 2022 over 300 bibanja holders petitioned the Minister of State for Lands complaining of illegal evictions by the applicant. On 14 October 2022 the Minister held a locus meeting on the suit land, which the applicant attended. The Minister concluded that the occupants were bona fide occupants whose interests had not been determined by the earlier judgment, ordered the applicant to cease evictions and directed his arrest and prosecution. The applicant was arrested, detained at Kakiri Police Station and CPS for about seven days, and released on police bond on 18 October 2022. He alleged he was not heard before the directives were made and complained of a further directive dated 8 February 2023 restoring bibanja holders and halting dealings in the land. The application for judicial review was filed on 27 February 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether the 1st respondent, a Minister sued in respect of official acts, and the 3rd respondent, a private individual, were properly joined as respondents to an application for judicial review.
  3. Whether the applicant had exhausted the remedies available within the public body before applying for judicial review.
  4. Whether the application was filed within the three months prescribed by rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.

Orders

  • The 3rd respondent, Jackson Kikonyogo, is struck off the application for not being a public official.
  • The application is struck out for having been filed outside the time prescribed by law.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Decisions of a Minister taken in official capacity
A Minister who makes an impugned decision in his official capacity is a public official within rule 7A(1)(c) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019, and is properly joined as a respondent to an application for judicial review notwithstanding a contention that he has been sued personally.
Judicial Review — Parties — Private individuals not amenable to judicial review
A respondent who is not shown to be a public official or to exercise public functions is not amenable to judicial review and must be struck off the application.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of internal remedies — Absence of remedy within the public body
Where no remedy exists against the decision of a public officer within the public body concerned, the requirement in rule 7A(1)(b) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 is satisfied and judicial review remains the available remedy.
Judicial Review — Time limits — Three months from when grounds first arose under rule 5(1)
An application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date the grounds of the application first arose; an application filed after that period is improperly before the court and is liable to be struck out without consideration of its merits.
Civil Procedure — Statutory time limits — Enlargement of time requires a formal application showing sufficient cause
Statutory time limits are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with; the court cannot extend them on its own motion, and an enlargement of time may only be granted upon a formal application supported by cogent reasons demonstrating sufficient cause.
Judicial Review — Computation of time — Date grounds first arose determined by the evidence, not the applicant's assertion
The date from which time runs is determined objectively from the pleadings and evidence establishing when the impugned action was taken and became actionable, and an applicant cannot rely on a later asserted decision date that is unsupported by his own evidence.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mike Mawejje v Hon Dr Sam Mayanja and Others [2026] UGHCCD 235 (22 July 2026)
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.