Wakilii

Mpungu v Uhuru & 3 Others (Civil Suit 12 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 45 · 2025 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging removal of applicant from office of Deputy Mayor
Decision
Applicant reinstated in office; removal decision and replacement appointment quashed; tribunal constitution prohibited

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 1st respondent's decision to remove the applicant from the office of Deputy Mayor was illegal, exercised for improper purposes driven by personal animosity rather than lawful grounds. The court found the decision was infected with malice, irrelevant considerations, and pursued an ulterior motive unrelated to the applicant's job performance. The subsequent constitution of a tribunal to investigate the applicant was also held unlawful, being based on insufficient grounds and improper motives. The court issued orders of certiorari quashing both the removal decision and the appointment of a replacement, and prohibition restraining respondents from constituting the tribunal.

Outcome

Applicant reinstated in office; removal decision and replacement appointment quashed; tribunal constitution prohibited

Facts

The applicant was elected as a woman councillor representing Old Kampala Parish in 2021 and was subsequently appointed Deputy Mayor of Kampala Central Division Urban Council by the 1st respondent with council approval. On 25th January 2024, the 1st respondent removed the applicant from office and appointed the 2nd respondent as Deputy Mayor. The 1st respondent claimed the removal was based on the applicant's conduct and alleged criminal charges of obtaining money by false pretence. On 6th February 2024, after guidance from the Executive Director of KCCA that the removal was irregular, the 1st respondent purported to rescind the decision. However, the applicant was not properly served with the rescission letter and remained uncertain of her status. Subsequently, councillors petitioned for a tribunal to investigate the applicant's conduct. The applicant filed for judicial review challenging the removal, the appointment of her replacement, and the proposed constitution of the tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st respondent's decision to remove the applicant from office as Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division was subsisting at the time of filing the application for judicial review and if so whether it was illegal
  2. Whether the constitution of the tribunal to investigate the applicant is lawful
  3. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • An Order of Certiorari issues to quash the decision of the 1st respondent to remove the applicant from the position of Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council embedded in his letter dated 25th January, 2024.
  • An Order of Certiorari issues to quash the decision of the 1st respondent appointing the 2nd respondent as Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council embedded in his letter dated 25th January, 2024.
  • An Order of Prohibition issues restraining the 3rd and 4th respondents from constituting a tribunal to investigate the applicant as premised on insufficient grounds and improper motives by the 1st respondent.
  • The applicant is awarded costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Improper Purpose — Exercise of Power for Ulterior Motive
Where a decision-maker exercises discretionary power for a purpose outside the scope for which it was granted, pursuing an improper, ulterior or extraneous purpose unrelated to the proper exercise of the power, the decision is illegal. A power exercised for personal animosity, revenge, or prejudice rather than legitimate administrative considerations is an improper exercise of power.
Administrative Law — Malice — Personal Animosity as Ground for Invalidity
A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those directly affected by its exercise. An administrative decision motivated by personal or political animosity built up in past dealings rather than objective assessment of conduct is invalid.
Administrative Law — Irrelevant Considerations — Personal Life and Unproven Allegations
An applicant's personal life should only affect official position if it is interrelated to what was done in the course of duty. It is improper to cause removal of a public officer based on mere suspicion or allegations on which the officer has not been convicted or found liable. Charges that can be settled out of court do not constitute sufficient grounds for removal on grounds of misconduct or misbehaviour.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Right to be Heard
A decision-maker must observe the rules of natural justice before arriving at a decision to remove a public officer from office. Failure to offer the affected person any right to be heard before making an adverse decision violates natural justice and renders the decision invalid.
Administrative Law — Tribunal Constitution — Insufficient Grounds
The constitution of a tribunal to investigate a public officer must be based on adequate grounds supported by cogent evidence. Where the grounds are wide, amorphous, and lack evidentiary support, or where the tribunal is constituted to validate an earlier unlawful decision driven by improper motives, the constitution of the tribunal is unlawful.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Certiorari and Prohibition
Where an administrative decision is found to have been made for improper purposes, infected with malice, and in violation of natural justice, the court may issue orders of certiorari to quash the decision and orders of prohibition to restrain authorities from proceeding with related unlawful actions such as constituting a tribunal based on the same improper foundation.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (2)

  • Smith v East Elloe RDC [1986] AC 736
  • R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mpungu v Uhuru & 3 Others (Civil Suit 12 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 45 (26 February 2025)
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.