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 Applications Granted — Injunctions Issued AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated interlocutory applications for temporary and mandatory injunctions pending determination of judicial review proceedings
Decision
Applications granted; temporary and mandatory injunctions issued pending determination of main judicial review proceedings.

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 granted temporary and mandatory injunctions restraining the Uganda Law Society from convening an Extraordinary General Meeting and holding Judicial Service Commission elections scheduled for 17 December 2024, and restoring the suspended Secretary and Central Region representative to their positions. The court found that the applicants established a prima facie case that the council had acted ultra vires by suspending members without due process after the purported expulsion of statutory council members, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending judicial review of the council's decisions and procedures.

Outcome

Applications granted; temporary and mandatory injunctions issued pending determination of main judicial review proceedings.

Facts

The applicants challenged the conduct of the Uganda Law Society's council arising from internal governance disputes. The President had issued an executive order expelling the Attorney General and Solicitor General from the council. Subsequently, the Secretary purportedly expelled the President and Vice President. In response, six council members convened an online meeting on 24 November 2024 and suspended the Secretary (3rd respondent) and the Central Region representative, Turyamusiima Geoffrey, appointing an interim secretary. The council then requisitioned an Extraordinary General Meeting for 17 December 2024 to formally remove the suspended members and conduct elections for representatives to the Judicial Service Commission. The 2nd applicant, who had been nominated for the JSC election, was disqualified on the basis that she had only 14.6 years' standing as an advocate rather than the required 15 years. Both applicants contended that the council's decisions were made ultra vires, in breach of natural justice, and without a duly constituted council, and sought injunctions to halt the scheduled meeting and elections pending judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants established a prima facie case warranting the grant of temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the respondents' council was duly constituted after the purported expulsion of the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
  3. Whether the respondents acted ultra vires and in procedural impropriety when suspending the 3rd respondent and the Central Region council representative without according them a hearing.
  4. Whether the 2nd applicant was lawfully and fairly disqualified from the nominations for representatives to the Judicial Service Commission.
  5. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunctions.
  6. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable injury if the injunctions were not granted.
  7. Whether the court should grant mandatory injunctions restoring the 3rd respondent and Turyamusiima Geoffrey to their council positions.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Standard
For a temporary injunction to be granted, the applicant must show that there is a substantial question to be investigated with chances of winning the main suit; that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which damages would not be capable of atoning if the temporary injunction is denied and the status quo not maintained; and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the application.
Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Not Proof to the Hilt
A prima facie case should not be confused with a case proved to the hilt. It is no part of the court's function at the interlocutory stage to try and resolve conflicts of evidence or to decide complicated questions of fact and law which call for detailed arguments and mature consideration.
Natural Justice — Suspension Without Hearing — Prima Facie Case
Where a statutory body suspends its officers without according them a right to be heard, a prima facie case of procedural impropriety and breach of natural justice is established, warranting investigation by the court through judicial review proceedings and preservation of the status quo by way of temporary injunction.
Mandatory Injunction — Purpose and Standard
A mandatory injunction is intended not to allow a party to retain a position of advantage obtained through a planned and blatant unlawful act or extreme fraudulent means intended to alter the status quo. A court is usually much more reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction and will only do so when it is clearly necessary for the effectuation of justice, and at the interlocutory stage, ought not to be granted save in exceptional circumstances such as plain and obvious cases.
Injunction — Balance of Convenience — Public Interest Not Absolute
While the interest of the public at large should ordinarily prevail over the interest of a few individuals, judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or perpetuate a wrong committed by a majority because they have numbers. The duty to uphold the law should be sacrosanct and should not be cherry-picked simply because certain activities such as elections or accounts approval are claimed to have a higher stake.
Ultra Vires Acts — Illegality Cannot Be Cured by Subsequent Ratification
Where a statutory body acts ultra vires or in breach of mandatory procedures, convening a general meeting to ratify or validate those illegal acts does not cure the initial illegality. An injunction may issue to prevent such a meeting from proceeding where the purpose is to perpetuate or cover illegalities.

Legislation cited (11)

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 Petition 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 Lts [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 2024)

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 Decem
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.