Wakilii

Millionstars Health Products Ltd and Others v Uganda Investment Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1216 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, mandamus, and injunction challenging allocation of industrial park
Decision
Application dismissed; parties to resolve disputes through ordinary civil suit if necessary

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

Held that the application for judicial review was not amenable to judicial review because the dispute arose from contractual tenancy agreements, constituting a private law matter rather than a public law matter. Judicial review is unavailable to enforce purely private law rights derived from contract. The relationship between the parties was governed by tenancy agreements, and disputes over occupation and ownership are properly resolved through ordinary civil suits, not administrative law remedies. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; parties to resolve disputes through ordinary civil suit if necessary

Facts

Eight small-scale industrial enterprises were tenants of Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) at Mbarara Industrial Park under tenancy agreements, paying minimal rent since some as early as 2010. On 17 August 2021, UIA purportedly handed over the park to Mbarara Gatsby Small Scale Enterprises Association Ltd following a Presidential directive of 18 January 2010 and ministerial ceremony. On 3 February 2022, the Association directed the applicants to enter fresh tenancy agreements or vacate by 28 February 2022. The applicants brought this judicial review application on 2 March 2022 seeking orders of certiorari to quash the allocation decision, prohibition against the handover, mandamus directing UIA to give them ownership as sitting tenants, and injunction against eviction. Applicants contended they had better rights as current occupants and that the Association did not exist at the time of the 2010 directive.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable to judicial review
  2. Whether the decision complained of is ultra vires
  3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Private Law Rights — Contractual Tenancy Disputes
Judicial review is unavailable to enforce purely private law rights such as rights derived from contract. Where a relationship is regulated by the law of contract, administrative law remedies should generally not be available, and parties should be held to their contractual obligations through ordinary civil suits.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Bodies — Commercial Transactions
The courts require either a public law element in a decision that goes beyond the exercise of a public body's private rights to dispose of and manage its assets and enter into contracts, or an arguable claim of abuse of power, before permitting judicial review of decisions about disposals of land and other commercial matters.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Disputes Better Resolved in Ordinary Suits
Where applicants dispute ownership of property and raise issues properly determinable through ordinary civil proceedings, including expired tenancy agreements and competing claims to title, the matter falls outside the ambit of judicial review and the remedy can only be obtained by way of an ordinary suit.
Administrative Law — Remedies — Contractual Relationships with Public Bodies
A party should not take advantage of public law simply because it contracted with a public body, and thereby obtain an advantage in the enforcement of that contract that would otherwise not be available against a non-public body or private person. Parties must enforce contractual obligations through ordinary civil claims.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1987] QB 815
  • State of Mauritius v CT Power Ltd [2019] UKSC 27
  • Mercury Ltd v Electricity Corporation [1994] 1 WLR 521
  • R (Shashikanth) v NHS Litigation Authority [2024] EWCA Civ 1477
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Ltd v Arua Municipal Council (High Court Misc. Cause No. 3 of 2016)
  • Margret Wamulugwa v Bugisu Cooperative Union (HCCA No. 62 of 2016)
  • R (Menai Collect Ltd) v Department for Constitutional Affairs [2006] EWHC 724 (Admin)
  • R (Gamesa Energy UK Ltd) v National Assembly for Wales [2006] EWHC 2167 (Admin)
  • Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimiire and 18 Others (Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Millionstars Health Products Ltd and Others v Uganda Investment Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 1216 (12 September 2
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.