Wakilii

Owor Arthur and Others v Gulu University (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2007)

High Court · [2007] UGHC 39 · 2007 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review by way of prerogative orders following termination of employment contracts
Decision
Terminations quashed and declared void ab initio; matter remitted to the University for proper handling in accordance with statutory procedures; applicants entitled to back pay pending proper determination

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 held that the Management Committee of Gulu University acted without jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice when terminating the teaching assistants' employment contracts without following statutory procedures or affording them a hearing. The terminations were void ab initio and quashed. The matter was remitted to the University to deal with in accordance with the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act and the University's terms and conditions of service.

Outcome

Terminations quashed and declared void ab initio; matter remitted to the University for proper handling in accordance with statutory procedures; applicants entitled to back pay pending proper determination

Facts

Nine teaching assistants employed by Gulu University on renewable two-year contracts pursued postgraduate studies at various universities. On 29 March 2007, the University's Management Committee terminated their employment on grounds that they had absconded from work by embarking on Masters programmes without official study leave. The applicants received termination letters dated 29 March 2007 with effect from 01 April 2007. No prior notice was given and no hearing afforded. The applicants challenged the terminations through judicial review, arguing the Management Committee lacked jurisdiction, acted ultra vires, and breached natural justice principles. The respondent denied wrongdoing and argued some applicants' contracts had already expired by the termination date.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants' application is competent before court
  2. Whether the applicants have a cause of action against the respondent
  3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • The decision to terminate the employment contract of each of the applicants as Teaching Assistant is null and void and stands quashed.
  • The decision to terminate the applicants' contracts of employment is remitted to the respondent to be dealt with, if the respondent still so wishes, in accordance with the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act and the Tenure, Terms and Conditions of Service for Gulu University-2005.
  • Each of the applicants is to be paid his/her full monthly remuneration and all entitlements from 01.04.2007 until the matter is conclusively dealt with in accordance with the law.
  • Each applicant is awarded interest at court rate on remuneration due for the period from 01.04.2007 up to the date of judgment.
  • No general damages are awarded.
  • The applicants are awarded the costs of this application and the costs of the application for leave to file the application for judicial review.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Constitutional Foundation — Right to Fair Hearing
Under Article 28(1) of the Constitution of Uganda, in the determination of civil rights and obligations, a person is entitled to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal, and this constitutional provision forms the foundation of the prerogative jurisdiction of judicial review in Uganda.
Public Officers — Constitutional Protection — Article 173
Employees of a public university created under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act are public officers in public service who enjoy the constitutional protection of Article 173, which forbids victimization, discrimination, dismissal, removal from office, reduction in rank or punishment of a public officer without just cause.
Judicial Review — Scope — Focus on Manner of Decision-Making
Judicial review goes to the manner in which the decision being challenged was made and is not primarily available as a means of reviewing a decision on the basis of whether it is fair or reasonable; the overriding purpose is to ensure fair treatment and that lawful authority is not abused, not for the court to substitute its own decision on the merits.
Natural Justice — Fundamental Rules — Nemo Judex in Causa Sua and Audi Alteram Partem
Implicit in the concept of fair treatment are two cardinal rules that constitute natural justice: no one shall be a judge in one's own cause and no one shall be condemned unheard; wherever there is a duty to act judicially these rules must be observed, and a decision reached without observing them is no decision at all.
University Staff — Termination of Employment — Statutory Procedures
Under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act section 50(3) and section 55, the Appointments Board is responsible for appointment, promotion, removal from service and discipline of university officers and staff, and the procedure for removal requires written notice of grounds, opportunity to respond, investigation, and hearing before the University Staff Tribunal; a Management Committee lacks jurisdiction to terminate employment.
Termination of Employment — Continuation of Contract by Conduct
Where fixed-term employment contracts have nominally expired but the employer continues to communicate with employees as employees, allows them to carry out their duties, and pays their salaries without formally terminating the relationship, the contracts are regarded as continuing by conduct and the employees remain entitled to procedural protections upon any purported termination.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (7)

  • Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (No. 3) (1971) EA 514
  • Pius Niwagaba v LDC (Civil Application No. 18 of 2005)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans (1982) 3 All ER 141
  • Caring for Orphans, Widows, and Elderly Limited v Bank of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 202 of 2006)
  • Marko Matovu and 2 Others v Mohammed Sseviri and The Uganda Land Commission (Court of Appeal No. 7 of 1987)
  • General Medical Council v Spackman (1943) 2 All ER 337
  • In Re Mustafa Ramathan (1996) V KALR 86

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Owor Arthur and Others v Gulu University (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2007) [2007] UGHC 39 (29 November 2007)
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.