Wakilii

Odo Tayebwa v Bushenyi District Local Council,Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MA-0106-2005 ) (HCT-05-CV-MA-0106-2005)

High Court · [2005] UGHC 93 · 2005 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writs of certiorari and prohibition during court vacation
Decision
Application dismissed; censure proceedings may proceed in accordance with statutory requirements

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 dismissed an application for writs of certiorari and prohibition brought by a District Speaker facing censure proceedings. The court held that the procedure adopted under sections 12(6A)-(6C) of the Local Governments Act was lawful and complied with statutory requirements. Where the Model Rules of Procedure for District Councils conflict with express statutory provisions enacted by Parliament, the statute prevails. The application was premature because no final determination or decision had been made that could be quashed by certiorari, and prohibition could not issue to restrain a process still in its preliminary stages.

Outcome

Application dismissed; censure proceedings may proceed in accordance with statutory requirements

Facts

The applicant was the incumbent Speaker of Bushenyi District Local Government Council. On 26 April 2004, 36 district councillors signed a petition seeking his removal from office. On 20 June 2005, the Chairman of Bushenyi District forwarded the petition through the Clerk to Council to the Minister of Local Government. On 20 July 2005, the Minister wrote appointing an Assistant Commissioner to convene and preside over a council meeting on 4 August 2005 to handle the petition and, if necessary, elect a new Speaker. On 21 July 2005, the applicant was granted leave to file an urgent application during court vacation seeking writs of certiorari to quash the petition and prohibition to restrain the Minister from taking action. The applicant contended that the procedure violated Model Rules of Procedure for District Councils (1998) and denied him a fair hearing because the petition had not been submitted to the full District Council before being forwarded to the Minister.

Issues

  1. Whether the procedure for censuring a District Speaker under the Local Governments Act had been violated.
  2. Whether the applicant had been denied the right to be heard in his defence.
  3. Whether the submission of the petition directly to the Minister without first going through the District Council violated the applicant's constitutional right to a fair hearing.
  4. Whether the respondents had acted in want of or in excess of jurisdiction.
  5. Whether a writ of certiorari should issue where no final determination or decision has been made.
  6. Whether a writ of prohibition should issue to restrain prospective action where certiorari is not available.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Writ of certiorari refused.
  • Writ of prohibition refused.
  • Preliminary objections not discussed as moot.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Certiorari — Requirements for Issue of Writ
A writ of certiorari will issue to quash a determination or decision of an inferior tribunal for excess or lack of jurisdiction, error of law on the face of the record, breach of the rules of natural justice, or where the determination was procured by fraud, collusion or perjury. Certiorari will not issue where no final determination or decision has been made.
Judicial Review — Prohibition — Relationship to Certiorari
The writ of prohibition is related to certiorari but acts in prospect to restrain a respondent from carrying out action, whereas certiorari quashes what has already been determined. Where certiorari is not available because no determination exists, prohibition will similarly not issue.
Statutory Interpretation — Conflict Between Statute and Administrative Guidelines
Where administrative guidelines or model rules conflict with express statutory provisions enacted by Parliament, the statute prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. Guidelines that are inconsistent with statutory provisions are extinguished to that extent and cannot be said to supplement the statute.
Local Government — Removal of District Speaker — Statutory Procedure
The procedure for removal of a District Speaker is governed by sections 12(6A)-(6C) of the Local Governments Act as amended. Section 12(6A) permits council members to give notice with grounds to the Chairperson of their intention to pass a resolution removing the Speaker. The notice is submitted to the Minister who must call a meeting of the Council within a stipulated period under section 12(6C). Compliance with these statutory provisions satisfies procedural requirements.
Fair Hearing — Right to Be Heard — Preliminary Stages of Proceedings
A right to a fair hearing is not violated where proceedings are still in preliminary stages and the applicant has not yet been afforded the opportunity to defend himself at the substantive hearing. Where a meeting has been convened at which the applicant will be able to present his defence, it is premature to claim denial of the right to be heard.
Judicial Review — Premature Applications
An application for judicial review is premature where the administrative process is still ongoing and no final determination has been made. Courts will not intervene in administrative proceedings that are incomplete and where the applicant retains other remedies including the right to be heard at the substantive hearing.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • In Re Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
  • R v Statutory Visitors to St. Lawrence's Hospital, Caterham ex parte Pritchard [1953] 2 All ER 766

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Odo Tayebwa v Bushenyi District Local Council,Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MA-0106-2005 ) (HCT-05-CV-MA-0106-2005) [2005] UGHC 93 (3 August 2005)
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.