Wakilii

Mujuni Everest and Others v Mwizi Co-operatives Savings and Credit Society Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 16 of 2019)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 101 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking to quash an inquiry report and its recommendations
Decision
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction — filed outside the statutory three-month time limit without an application for extension of time

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 6 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground that it was filed outside the mandatory three-month time limit prescribed by Section 40(7) of the Judicature Act. The court held that time began to run from 7 August 2019 when the inquiry report was issued, not from 6 September 2019 when it was tabled. The application filed on 26 November 2019 was therefore statute-barred. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the absence of an application for extension of time.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction — filed outside the statutory three-month time limit without an application for extension of time

Facts

The applicants, members and office holders of a co-operative society, sought judicial review of an inquiry report into the society's operations produced by Shore Partners. The report, issued on 7 August 2019 and tabled on 6 September 2019, made adverse findings against the applicants and recommended their dismissal, removal from office, refund of monies, and criminal prosecution. The applicants filed their judicial review application on 26 November 2019, challenging the report on grounds of illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness, and procedural impropriety. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had no cause of action against it as the inquiry was conducted by Shore Partners appointed by the Registrar of Co-operatives.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was filed within the prescribed time limit of three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review filed outside the statutory time limit without an application for extension of time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Commencement of Limitation Period
Time for filing an application for judicial review begins to run from the date when the decision under challenge was taken, not from the date when the applicant became aware of the decision.
Judicial Review — Time Limits — Mandatory Nature of Three-Month Period
The requirement under Section 40(7) of the Judicature Act that an application for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months is mandatory, and the use of the word 'shall' makes compliance obligatory.
Judicial Review — Time Limits — Effect of Non-Compliance
An application for judicial review filed after the expiration of the three-month limitation period without an application for extension of time cannot be entertained by the court, as the court lacks jurisdiction to hear a statute-barred matter.
Limitation — Statutory Time Limits — Substantive Law
Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with.
Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Relevance of Claimant's Knowledge
While the date of the claimant's knowledge of the decision is irrelevant to when time begins to run, it is relevant and likely to be highly material to the question of whether the claim was brought promptly or whether the three-month time limit should be extended.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (15)

  • Dawson Kadope v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMC No. 40 of 2019)
  • Ali Ssekatawa v Attorney General and Others (HCMA No. 293 of 2017)
  • Kampala University v The National Council for Higher Education (HCMC No. 53 of 2014)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 51
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (SCCA No. 1 of 1997)
  • International Business Science & Technology (ISBAT) University v The Attorney General and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 827 of 2025)
  • R v Stratford-on-Avon District Council & Anor ex parte Jackson [1985] 3 All ER
  • R v The Secretary of State for Works and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 1119
  • Dr Akampumuza and Another v Makerere University Business School and Others (HCMA No. 514 of 2012)
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Presvac Engineering Ltd (1991) 4 Admin LR 121
  • R (Sustainable Development Capital LLP) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] EWHC 771 (Admin)
  • R Vs Transport of Transport Exp Presvac Engineering Ltd Times July 10, 1991CA
  • R Vs London Borough of Red Bridge exp G. March 20, 1991 DC Unreported
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd [1997-2001] UCL 149
  • IP Mugumya v Attorney General (HCMC No. 116 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mujuni Everest and Others v Mwizi Co-operatives Savings and Credit Society Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 16 of 2019) [2026] UGHC 101 (23 January 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.