Wakilii

Okello v Kyambogo University & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.23 OF 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 97 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Academic Registrar
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory remedies

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 the application for judicial review on the ground that it was prematurely brought. The applicant, a university staff member, failed to exhaust the statutory appeal procedure through the University Staff Tribunal before seeking judicial review under section 57 of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act. The court held that where Parliament has established a statutory procedure for resolving grievances, that procedure must be exhausted before recourse to the High Court.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory remedies

Facts

The applicant, Dr. Peter Okello, was appointed Acting Academic Registrar of Kyambogo University on 3 April 2017. The university externally advertised the substantive position on 7 April 2017. The applicant applied for the position. After an initial shortlisting, the Appointments Board mysteriously declined to interview shortlisted candidates and re-advertised in September 2017. Four candidates, including the applicant and the 2nd respondent, were shortlisted and interviewed. On 20 March 2018, the applicant was informed he was not appointed because he was not the best candidate. The 2nd respondent was appointed and reported for duty on 3 April 2018. The applicant lodged an appeal to the University Staff Tribunal on 19 March 2018 but withdrew it on 10 April 2018. On the same day, he filed this application for judicial review seeking to quash the appointment and to compel a fresh recruitment process.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was properly brought before the High Court without first exhausting the University Staff Tribunal's appellate procedure
  2. Whether there was a breach of established procedures in the appointment of the substantive Academic Registrar
  3. Whether the 1st respondent breached the applicant's legitimate expectation to be appointed on promotion
  4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Statutory Appeal Procedures
Where Parliament has provided a statutory procedure for resolving a grievance, that procedure must be exhausted before seeking judicial review unless the statutory remedy is inadequate or unavailable. Judicial review is a collateral challenge and will only rarely be available where an appeal procedure exists.
Administrative Law — University Staff Disputes — Statutory Tribunals
Under section 57 of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, a member of staff must first appeal to the University Staff Tribunal against a decision of the Appointments Board, and only if aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision may the staff member apply to the High Court for judicial review within 30 days.
Administrative Law — Forum Shopping — Case Management
Withdrawing an appeal from a statutory tribunal and immediately filing a judicial review application in the High Court on the same day amounts to forum shopping and an abuse of process. Such conduct adds to case backlog and defeats the purpose of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms.
Administrative Law — Legitimate Expectation — Requirements for Substantive Expectation
For a legitimate expectation to be enforceable, the promise or representation giving rise to the expectation must be clear, unambiguous and unqualified. An applicant cannot claim legitimate expectation where his appointment letter clearly stated his position was acting until the substantive position was filled and the position was to be externally advertised under the applicable Human Resource Manual.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Discretion of Court — Effect on Third Parties
The grant of judicial review remedies remains discretionary even where grounds for review exist. The court may refuse to quash a decision where doing so would be detrimental to good administration or would adversely affect innocent third parties who have acted in reliance on the decision.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature Act s.36
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.3
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.6
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.7
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.8
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act s.43
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act s.50
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act s.51
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act s.57

Cases cited (14)

  • Fuelex Uganda Ltd v Attorney General and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2014)
  • Micro Care Insurance Limited v Uganda Insurance Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 218 of 2009)
  • Preston v IRC [1995] 2 All ER 327
  • Classy Photo Mart Ltd v Commissioner Customs URA (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2009)
  • Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 141 of 2015)
  • Charles Nsubuga v Eng Badru Kiggundu and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 148 of 2015)
  • Bernard Mulage v Fineserve Africa Limited and 3 Others (Petition No. 503 of 2014)
  • Speaker of National Assembly v Ngenga Karume [2008] 1 KLR 425
  • R v Huntingdon District Council ex parte Cowan [1984] 1 All ER 58
  • Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904
  • Attorney General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 All ER 346
  • World Point Group Ltd v Attorney General and URA (Civil Suit No. 227 of 2013)
  • R v Aston University Senate ex parte Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okello v Kyambogo University & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.23 OF 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 97 (16 August 2018)
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.