Wakilii

Mugisha v Uganda Law Society & 7 Others & Nabasa v Uganda Law Society & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1243 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 1262 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 203 · 2024 Applications Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Applications for temporary and mandatory injunctions arising from miscellaneous cause pending judicial review
Decision
Applications granted with temporary and mandatory injunctions issued pending final disposal of the main judicial review applications

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 applicants established a prima facie case raising serious triable issues regarding the lawfulness of the Uganda Law Society Council's suspension of members and its convening of an Extraordinary General Meeting. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending the main judicial review application, as the suspended members had been denied natural justice. Temporary injunctions issued restraining the holding of the EGM and elections to the Judicial Service Commission. Mandatory injunctions issued restoring the suspended Secretary and Central Region representative to their positions until final disposal of the main cause.

Outcome

Applications granted with temporary and mandatory injunctions issued pending final disposal of the main judicial review applications

Facts

The Uganda Law Society Council suspended its Secretary (3rd respondent) and the Central Region representative without a hearing on 24 November 2024 and appointed an interim secretary. The Council also scheduled an Extraordinary General Meeting for 17 December 2024 to elect representatives to the Judicial Service Commission and formally remove the suspended members. The first applicant challenged the legality of these suspensions and the EGM convening, arguing the Council was not properly constituted after the President expelled the Attorney General and Solicitor General. The second applicant was initially nominated as a candidate for election to the JSC but was later disqualified by the Elections Committee on grounds she lacked the required 15 years' standing. Both applicants sought temporary and mandatory injunctions to halt the EGM and elections, restore the suspended members, and allow the second applicant to participate in the elections pending judicial review of the Council's actions.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.
  4. Whether a mandatory injunction should issue to restore suspended council members to their positions.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction order doth issue restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from implementing a purported Council decision dated 24th November 2024 and or convening the Extraordinary General Meeting on 17th December 2024 until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause No. 1243 of 2024.
  • A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the respondents, its agents, servants or representatives from holding elections for its representatives to the Judicial Service Commission at the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for the 17th day of December 2024 or any meeting scheduled thereafter, pending the determination of the main cause.
  • A mandatory injunction order doth issue restoring the 3rd respondent as Secretary and Council member of the 1st respondent until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause No. 1243 of 2024.
  • A mandatory injunction order doth issue restoring Turyamusiima Geofrey as Council member of the 1st respondent until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause 1243 of 2024.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Test for Grant — Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Injury, and Balance of Convenience
For a temporary injunction to be granted, the applicant must show (1) a substantial question to be investigated with chances of success in the main suit, (2) that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which damages cannot atone if the injunction is denied, and (3) that the balance of convenience is in favour of the application.
Mandatory Injunctions — Exceptional Circumstances Required at Interlocutory Stage
A mandatory injunction is intended not to allow a party to retain a position of advantage obtained through planned and blatant unlawful acts. Courts are reluctant to grant mandatory injunctions at the interlocutory stage save in exceptional circumstances such as plain and obvious cases, and where the court has a high degree of assurance that at trial the injunction will appear to have been rightly granted.
Suspension of Members — Natural Justice and Fair Hearing
Where a public body suspends its members without affording them a right to a fair hearing, the court will intervene to restore them pending the final determination of the legality of the suspension, as denial of natural justice constitutes an exceptional circumstance warranting a mandatory injunction.
Interlocutory Applications — Avoiding Premature Determination of Complex Issues
At the interlocutory stage of a temporary injunction application, the court will not resolve conflicts of evidence on facts or decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed arguments and mature consideration. These are matters to be dealt with at trial.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (12)

  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Hon. Lt (Rtd) Saleh M.W Kamba and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2013)
  • National Resistance Movement v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Petition No. 21 of 2013)
  • Joseph Kwesiga v Attorney General (Constitutional Petitions No. 21 & 25 of 2013)
  • East African Spinners Ltd & Others v Bedi Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1994)
  • Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd [2005] 3 SLR(R) 142
  • Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro Export and Others [1986] 1 All ER 901
  • Kalali Stephen v Uganda Law Society (Miscellaneous Cause No. 129 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugisha v Uganda Law Society & 7 Others & Nabasa v Uganda Law Society & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1243 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 1262 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 203 (13 December 2024)
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.