Wakilii

Nakatudde & ANother v Makerere University (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 175 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 45 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application seeking mandamus, prohibition and declarations arising from respondent's alleged failure to comply with Staff Appeals Tribunal orders
Decision
Application granted with orders of mandamus and prohibition issued; applicants awarded damages and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 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

Held that the affidavit in reply was defective as it was commissioned by the respondent's Director of Legal Affairs contrary to section 4 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act and was struck out. The respondent's selective implementation of the Staff Appeals Tribunal order—reinstating two staff members but not the applicants—constituted arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal exercise of discretionary power. The attempt to conduct disciplinary proceedings outside the mandatory 60-day period ordered by the Tribunal was an arbitrary exercise of power and abuse of authority. Orders of prohibition and mandamus issued directing reinstatement, payment of arrears, and restraining disciplinary proceedings outside the 60-day limit.

Outcome

Application granted with orders of mandamus and prohibition issued; applicants awarded damages and costs

Facts

The applicants, Fatumah Nakatudde (Deputy Registrar) and Apunyo Paul Okiria (Senior Administrative Assistant), were dismissed by Makerere University's Appointments Board on 8 October 2018. They appealed to the Staff Appeals Tribunal, which on 16 April 2019 set aside the dismissals, ordered reinstatement, and directed the Appointments Board to conduct fresh disciplinary hearings within 60 days if necessary. The respondent reinstated two other beneficiaries of the same Tribunal order (Dr. Okullo and Dr. Nabirye) but refused to reinstate the applicants or pay their salaries. The 60-day period for disciplinary hearings expired without action. After the applicants filed this judicial review application, the respondent attempted to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings beyond the 60-day deadline. The applicants sought judicial review for mandamus, prohibition, declarations of contempt, and damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply commissioned by a Director of Legal Affairs who works for the respondent is defective under the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act
  2. Whether the application raises issues amenable to judicial review
  3. Whether the respondent's selective implementation of the Staff Appeals Tribunal order constitutes illegal, irrational and discriminatory exercise of power
  4. Whether the respondent's attempt to conduct disciplinary hearings beyond the 60-day period set by the Tribunal is contemptuous and illegal
  5. What remedies are available to the applicants

Orders

  • Affidavit in reply struck out for being commissioned in breach of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act.
  • An order of prohibition issued against the respondent restraining it from conducting disciplinary proceedings against the applicants outside the 60 days directed by the Staff Appeals Tribunal.
  • An order of mandamus issued directing the respondent to reinstate the applicants to the positions of Deputy Registrar and Senior Administrative Assistant and to pay all their salary arrears and emoluments.
  • An award of UGX 12,500,000 for each applicant as damages arising out of the delayed payments and anguish.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Commissioners for Oaths — Prohibition on commissioning affidavits where commissioner has interest
A commissioner for oaths who is an employee of a party's legal department and who works in the directorate that filed the affidavit is interested in the matter and cannot lawfully commission an affidavit in that proceeding under section 4 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act. An affidavit commissioned in breach of this prohibition is incurably defective and must be struck out.
Judicial Review — Scope and purpose
Judicial review is the process by which the High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over proceedings and decisions of subordinate courts, tribunals and other bodies or persons who carry out quasi-judicial functions. The purpose is to ensure that public powers are exercised within the basic standards of legality, fairness and rationality, and to prevent arbitrariness in administration.
Staff Appeals Tribunal decisions — Binding effect and duty to implement
Decisions of a Staff Appeals Tribunal established under statute are binding and have the force of law. Implementation of such a decision, if not appealed against, is mandatory and must be wholly effected without delay. Any act of refusing or delaying implementation constitutes a violation of law and an exercise of arbitrary power.
Exercise of discretionary power — Prohibition on arbitrary and discriminatory exercise
The selective or discriminatory implementation of a quasi-judicial tribunal's decision—where some beneficiaries are reinstated but others are excluded—constitutes arbitrary and wrongful exercise of discretionary power. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion must be guided by law and known principles, not by whim, caprice, or discrimination.
Disciplinary proceedings — Timeliness and compliance with tribunal orders
Where a Staff Appeals Tribunal sets a mandatory time limit (such as 60 days) for the conduct of fresh disciplinary hearings, the failure to conduct such hearings within that period extinguishes the authority to proceed thereafter. An attempt to initiate disciplinary proceedings after the expiry of the tribunal-imposed deadline constitutes an illegal and arbitrary exercise of power and an abuse of authority.
Remedies — Prohibition and mandamus
An order of prohibition will issue to restrain a public body from conducting proceedings in violation of a tribunal's binding order. An order of mandamus will issue to compel a public body to perform a statutory duty, including reinstatement of employees and payment of salary arrears where so directed by a competent tribunal.
Judicial Review — Damages for injury caused by unlawful administrative action
Under Rule 8(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, the court has power to award damages for injury or damage suffered as a result of unlawful administrative action, including wrongful withholding of salary and emoluments and damage to reputation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (5)

  • Stephen M. Mogoka VS Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 2 Ors: Election petition No.2 of 2017 (2017) eKLR
  • Dr. Julianne Sansa Otim v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 258 of 2016)
  • Twinomuhangi Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 156 of 2006)
  • Namuddu Hanifa v Returning Officer Kampala District and 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 69 of 2006)
  • Dr. Elizabeth Kaase Bwanga v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 205 of 2018)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Nakatudde & ANother v Makerere University (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 175 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 45 (14 April 2020)
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.