Wakilii

Mpigi Town Council v Kisuule (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 06 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 150 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court judgment awarding damages
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Application for review dismissed. No error apparent on the face of the record where damages award was based on multiple factors including reputational harm, mental suffering, and unlawful removal from office, not solely on loss of earnings. Correction of voting numbers from 11 to 12 members does not affect the finding that the resolution was unlawful, as 12 votes still fell short of the statutory requirement of more than half of 23 members.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent successfully sued the applicant council in HCCS No. 157 of 2013, challenging a resolution passed on 28 February 2013 that impeached him from the executive committee. The court found the resolution unlawful and awarded the respondent UGX 30,000,000 in general damages plus costs. The applicant sought review of that judgment, arguing that the damages award was an error because the respondent had been reinstated by temporary injunction in MA No. 247 of 2013 and therefore suffered no loss of earnings. The applicant also argued that the court erred in finding that 11 members voted when actually 12 voted, though this still fell short of the statutory threshold requiring more than half of the 23-member council.

Issues

  1. Whether the court's award of UGX 30,000,000 in general damages constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. Whether the court erred in finding that only 11 members voted when 12 members actually voted in favour of the censure resolution.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For an error to constitute a ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record, meaning an evident error that does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and is so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Distinction from Appeal — Matters Requiring Argument
An application for review is not the proper avenue where establishing the alleged error requires examination and argument; such matters should be pursued by way of appeal.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment on Multiple Factors — Reinstatement Does Not Negate Award
Where general damages are assessed on a combination of factors including reputational harm, mental suffering, and loss of earnings during unlawful removal, subsequent reinstatement does not render the award erroneous, as the damage had already been occasioned and the respondent was not compensated for the period of unlawful removal.
Administrative Law — Local Government — Censure Resolution — Statutory Quorum Requirements
Under Section 26A of the Local Government Act Cap 243, a vote of censure against a member of an executive committee requires a resolution supported by more than half of all council members; where a council has 23 members, 12 votes are insufficient as more than 12 (i.e., at least 13) are required.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Busoga Growers Cooperative Union Ltd v Nsamba & Sons Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2000)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Abdul Jafar Devji v Ali RMS Devji [1958] EA 558
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Batuk K. Vyas v Surat Borough Municipality & Ors (1953) Bom 133

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mpigi Town Council Vs Kisuule (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 06 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 150 (21 September 2017)
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.