Wakilii

Mubiru James and Others v Board of Governors (Old Kampala Senior Secondary School) and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 184 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 150 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging removal from Board of Governors
Decision
Applicants reinstated to their Board positions with immediate effect; respondents ordered to pay outstanding allowances and costs

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 removal of three Board of Governors members from Old Kampala Senior Secondary School was illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper. The power to suspend or remove Board members vests exclusively in the Minister of Education and Sports and must be exercised formally in writing. The Board itself lacked authority to remove members. The applicants were denied notice and a hearing in violation of natural justice and Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution. Removing Board members for exercising legitimate oversight functions over school finances was irrational. The court quashed the removal decision and reinstated the applicants.

Outcome

Applicants reinstated to their Board positions with immediate effect; respondents ordered to pay outstanding allowances and costs

Facts

The three applicants were appointed by the Minister of Education and Sports as members of the Board of Governors of Old Kampala Senior Secondary School on 4th December 2023 for a three-year term. During their service, they raised concerns regarding accountability in school finances, property hiring, and staffing decisions. On 6th February 2025, a meeting convened by the Minister of State for Higher Education resolved that the applicants step aside pending investigations. On 14th May 2025, a Board meeting was held without the applicants, at which committees were reconstituted. On 2nd July 2025, when the applicants attended a Board meeting, they were forcibly removed by police on instructions of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The applicants were never formally notified of any suspension or removal, never given a hearing, and never received written communication from the appointing authority.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competent and properly before the Court, having regard to the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents.
  2. Whether the application is premature and offends the doctrine that judicial review is a remedy of last resort, in that the Applicants failed to exhaust available alternative remedies under the Education Act.
  3. Whether there is a cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as individuals.
  4. Whether there are established grounds for administrative judicial review, namely: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
  5. What remedies, if any, are available to the Applicants.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections dismissed.
  • Declared that the appointment of the applicants as Board members by the Minister on 4th December 2023 for a term ending 4th December 2026 remains valid and subsisting.
  • Declared that the decision taken at or around 14th May 2025 to exclude, suspend, or remove the applicants without notice, hearing, or formal written authorisation was illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper, and is null and void ab initio.
  • Order of Certiorari issued quashing the decision of 14th May 2025 to remove the applicants and reconstitute Board committees.
  • Order of Prohibition issued restraining the respondents from implementing the unlawful decision and from interfering with the applicants' performance of their duties.
  • The applicants reinstated to their respective positions on the Board with immediate effect.
  • Respondents to pay all outstanding allowances and entitlements to each applicant from the date of unlawful exclusion to reinstatement.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Doctrine Not Absolute
The doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies in judicial review is not absolute and yields where the statutory remedy is plainly unavailable, inadequate, or inapplicable to the circumstances. Where applicants were never formally notified of any suspension or removal and no disciplinary hearing was held, the statutory appeal process under the Education Act does not apply, as there is no formal decision against which an appeal would lie.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Individual Officers of Public Bodies
Individual members of a statutory Board exercising public functions are not private individuals but statutory office bearers of a public institution. Their conduct in that capacity is subject to public law scrutiny. Where such officers personally direct police to evict Board members, they may be joined as respondents in judicial review proceedings.
Judicial Review — Reviewable Decisions — Interim Administrative Measures
Where a public body takes a step, whether labelled interim or otherwise, that has a decisive and immediate effect on the rights of an individual, that step is susceptible to judicial review. An act that excludes persons from a Board entirely is indistinguishable from a decision removing them, regardless of whether it is characterised as interim or final.
Illegality — Ultra Vires Acts — Power to Appoint and Remove
Under the Education Act, the power to constitute, appoint, and suspend members of a Board of Governors vests in the Minister of Education and Sports. The power to dismiss belongs to the authority that appointed. It is not open to the Board itself or individual members of the Board to remove fellow members. Any purported suspension or removal not effected by formal written direction of the Minister is a nullity.
Procedural Impropriety — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem
The rules of natural justice require that before a person is adversely affected by a decision, they must be given notice of the allegations or case against them and an opportunity to respond. Removing Board members without notifying them of a meeting at which their removal was decided, without telling them of allegations against them, and without affording them a hearing violates the rule of audi alteram partem and Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution.
Irrationality — Wednesbury Unreasonableness — Removal for Performing Lawful Duties
Removing Board members for performing their statutory oversight duties over financial management is irrational and defeats the entire purpose for which those members were appointed. No reasonable board of governors, acting in accordance with its statutory mandate, would remove members for doing the very thing those members were appointed to do.
Remedies — Damages in Judicial Review — Reinstatement and Allowances
Courts do not ordinarily award damages in judicial review proceedings, because judicial review is primarily concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not compensation. The appropriate remedy is to quash the unlawful decision, reinstate the affected persons, and order payment of allowances and entitlements they would have received.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (8)

  • Ssewanyana Jimmy v Kampala International University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 207 of 2018)
  • Classy Photo Mart Ltd v The Commissioner Customs URA (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2009)
  • Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership v URSB and 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 263 of 2022)
  • Geoffrey Brown v Ojijo Pascal (Civil Suit No. 228 of 2017)
  • Unzi v Moyo District Local Government and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0097 of 2016)
  • Mwanje v The Attorney General of Uganda (2024)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew and 20 Others v AG and 6 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mubiru James and Others v Board of Governors (Old Kampala Senior Secondary School) and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 184 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 150 (30 April 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.