Wakilii

Nebya Rutaro & Ors v Law Development Center (Civil Application 135 of 2009)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 56 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash dismissal from Post Graduate Bar Course and reinstate applicants
Decision
Applicants' challenge to their failure to complete Bar Course dismissed; they remain at liberty to re-apply to repeat the course

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 Law Development Centre's internal rules limiting Bar Course completion to three years and requiring students to pass all subjects are valid administrative regulations made under general statutory powers. The rules are intra vires the Law Development Centre Act and bind students admitted under those conditions. Applicants who failed examinations within the stipulated period were not denied rights to education or to practise their profession. Application for judicial review dismissed.

Outcome

Applicants' challenge to their failure to complete Bar Course dismissed; they remain at liberty to re-apply to repeat the course

Facts

Five applicants were admitted to Law Development Centre's Post Graduate Bar Course for academic year 2006/2007. They sat examinations and subsequent supplementary examinations but failed to pass all required subjects within three years from admission. On 28 July 2009, respondent notified them they had failed the Bar Course under its three-year rule, which limits course duration to three years and requires passing all subjects. Applicants applied for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash the decision and mandamus for reinstatement, contending the rules did not exist or were ultra vires, unlawful, and denied their constitutional rights to education and to practise law. Respondent opposed, asserting rules were validly made under its general statutory powers, had been brought to applicants' attention, and applied uniformly to regulate the course and maintain standards.

Issues

  1. Whether the action of the applicants or some of them is tenable.
  2. Whether the applicants or any of them failed and were dismissed by the respondent; and if so whether the dismissal was lawful, fair and equitable.
  3. Whether the dismissal amounted to a denial of the applicants' right to education and to practice their profession.
  4. Whether there are any rules for passing the Bar Course and if so whether the said rules are ultra vires and unenforceable.
  5. Whether the rules include the impugned three year rule.
  6. Whether the rules were correctly applied against the applicants.
  7. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies prayed for.
  8. Whether the respondent trained and examined the applicants undertaking the Bar Course as provided by law.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Scope — Review of Decision-Making Process versus Merits
Judicial review involves assessment of the manner in which a decision is made, not an appeal on merits. The court exercises supervisory jurisdiction to ensure public powers are exercised in accordance with legality, fairness and rationality, but does not substitute its own decision for that of the decision-making body or go into the merits of the decision itself.
Administrative Law — Delegated Powers — General Statutory Powers — Implied Authority to Make Internal Regulations
Where a statute imposes a duty on a public authority or entrusts it with power to perform functions in the public interest but expresses that duty in general terms, the authority is entitled to determine the particular way or means by which performance of the statute can be fulfilled. Internal administrative rules made to facilitate the better carrying out of statutory functions under such general powers are intra vires provided they do not contravene the enabling statute.
Administrative Law — Statutory Instruments — Publication in Gazette — Distinction between Legislative and Administrative Rules
Not every duty imposed upon a statutory body by law is exercisable by issuance of a statutory instrument. Rules may be validly made under an Act of Parliament and regarded as administrative rather than legislative. Internal administrative rules intended to guide those entrusted with administration of an institution's functions are not rules in the nature of delegated legislative authority requiring publication in the gazette.
Employment & Labour — Educational Institutions and Students — Contractual Relationship — Student Bound by Admission Terms
The legal relationship between an educational institution and its students is contractual in nature. A student is bound by the terms on which the institution admitted them or offers the course and cannot insist on remaining in the institution on their own terms. Where a student undertakes on admission to comply with course regulations stipulated by the institution, those regulations are contractually binding and the student's constitutional right to education does not mean a right to attend on the student's own terms.
Judicial Review — Academic Decisions — Policy and Standards — Deference to Specialist Bodies
In academic matters involving issues of policy and standards, courts defer to the judgment of boards and institutions entrusted by statute with those responsibilities. Parliament's delegate in matters of legal training and examination is the best judge of merit pertaining to academic standards. Courts will not intervene in the merits of decisions on academic policy by bodies vested with statutory authority over legal education.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (29)

  • Fr. Francis B Muntu v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 643 of 2005)
  • Hajji Nasser Takuba v Kawempe Local Government Council (Miscellaneous Application No. 164 of 2008)
  • Nandala Mafabi v Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 223 of 2010)
  • Wade 6th Edition, pp 858-859 footnote 55 & 881 footnote 2
  • R v Home Secretary exp. Zamir (1980) AC 930
  • Johnson v Sargant & Sons (1918) 1 KB 101
  • Simmonds v Newell (1953) 1 WLR 826
  • UPU v NCHE
  • Dr. Julius C. Enos v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Application No. 381 of 2005)
  • Nathan Mafabi & Anor v Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 223)
  • Roe v Russel (1928) 2 KB 138
  • Merkur Island Shipping Corp V Laughton & Ors (1983) 2 AC at 612
  • Ddegeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v URA (1997)3 KALR 108
  • Habyene v AG (1996) 3 KALR 23
  • YWCA & Ors v National Council for Higher Education & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 579 of 2005)
  • Herring v Templeman & Ors (1973)3 All ER 569
  • Judicial Control of Universities (1969) 85 LQR 468-472
  • Dimanche Sharon & Ors v Makerere University (Consolidated Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • University of Ceylon v Fernando (1960) 1 All ER 631
  • Meade v London Borough of Haringey (1979) 2 All ER 1016
  • Commissioner for Customs and Excise v Cure & Deely Ltd (1962) 1 QB 342
  • His Worship Aggrey Bwire v Attorney General & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2010)
  • National Insurance Corporation v National Social Security funds (2004) KALR 646
  • Catholic Diocese of Moshi v Attorney General (2000) 1 EA 25
  • Sanghani Investment Ltd v O/C Nairobi Remand and Allocation Prison (2007)1 EA 354
  • Opoloto V Attorney General (1969) EA 631
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala & Anor (1982) HCB 11
  • Semwo Construction Company v Rukungiri District Local Government (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2010)
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 3 others (Civil Application No. 353 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nebya Rutaro & Ors v Law Development Center (Civil Application 135 of 2009) [2013] UGHCCD 56 (5 April 2013)
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.