Wakilii

Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council [2008] 2 EA 300

Unknown · [2006] UGHC 152 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari, prohibition, declarations and injunction
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker held valid and effective; all decisions of the Council since 16 May 2006 remain valid

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 Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Local Government Councils Regulations, requiring councillors to make a written declaration accepting office, is merely directive and not mandatory. The court found that once councillors had taken the oath of office as required by Regulation 2(1)(a), thereby publicly committing to serve the council, the written declaration became a mere formality. The failure to submit written declarations did not invalidate the council's proceedings. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker held valid and effective; all decisions of the Council since 16 May 2006 remain valid

Facts

The applicant, a duly elected councillor to Kabale District Local Government Council, challenged the validity of the council's inaugural meeting on 16 May 2006. At that meeting, the District Chairperson and councillors were sworn in, and the second and third respondents were elected as Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively. The applicant contended that the council was illegally constituted because the councillors had not submitted written declarations accepting office as required by Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Local Government Councils Regulations. The respondents argued that the councillors had taken the oath of office as required by Regulation 2(1)(a), and that the requisite quorum was present, making the election lawful. The respondents maintained that the written declaration was not mandatory for the validity of the proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the first respondent was illegally constituted on 16 May 2006 when it elected the second and third respondents as Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the absence of written declarations by councillors accepting office as required by Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Local Government Councils Regulations.
  2. Whether the requirement in Regulation 2(1)(b) to make a written declaration accepting the office of councillor is mandatory or merely directive.
  3. Whether the elections of the second and third respondents as Speaker and Deputy Speaker should be quashed on grounds of illegality and procedural impropriety.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds for Judicial Review — Record on Application
In an application for judicial review, the affidavits filed in court by and for the respective parties to the application constitute the record with regard to the decision or act complained of and subject of review.
Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality, Irrationality and Procedural Impropriety
The grounds on which administrative action may be subject to judicial review are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law; irrationality is gross unreasonableness defying logic and acceptable moral standards; procedural impropriety is failure to act fairly or to observe procedural rules laid down by statute.
Statutory Interpretation — Mandatory versus Directory Provisions — Test to be Applied
To determine whether the legislature intended a particular provision of a statute to be mandatory, the court must consider the whole scope and purpose of the statute, assess the importance of the impugned provision in relation to the general object intended to be achieved by the Act, consider the protection of the provision in relation to the rights of the individual, and the effect of the decision that the provision is mandatory.
Local Government — Local Government Councils Regulations — Written Declaration Accepting Office
The requirement in Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Local Government Councils Regulations for a councillor to make a written declaration addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer accepting the office of councillor is a mere formality. Once a councillor has taken the oath of office as required by Regulation 2(1)(a), publicly committing to serve the council faithfully and uphold the Constitution, failure to submit the written declaration cannot deprive an elected councillor of the mandate to execute council business as a representative of the people.
Judicial Review — Exercise of Discretion — Principles Applicable
A prerogative remedy is grantable as a result of the judicial exercise by the court of its discretion. The exercise of the discretion requires the court to act judicially and according to settled principles, being conscious at all times that the decision must be based upon common sense and justice.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Judicature Act Chapter 13 s.38
  • Judicature (Amendment) Act 3 of 2002
  • Local Government Act Chapter 243 s.3
  • Local Government Act Chapter 243 s.6
  • Local Government Act Chapter 243 s.9
  • Local Government Act s.119
  • Local Government Act s.138
  • Local Government Act s.139
  • Local Government Councils Regulations Regulation 2(1)(a)
  • Local Government Councils Regulations Regulation 2(1)(b)
  • Local Government Councils Regulations Regulation 14

Cases cited (12)

  • R v Southampton Justices ex parte Green [1976] QB 11
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University and others (High Court Civil Application for Judicial Review No. 353 of 2003)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2
  • Francis Bahikirwe Muntu and others v Kyambogo University (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 643 of 2005)
  • Re an Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
  • Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990] AC 876
  • Lall v Jeypee Investments Ltd [1972] EA 512
  • Attorney-General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436
  • Byaruhanga Katumba v Kiwalabye Musoke (Election Petition Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Gardner v Jay (1885) 29 ChD 50
  • Margaret Ntorantyo v Mukono District Council (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2005)
  • Miscellaneous Cause Number 63 of 1999: In the Matter of an application for an order of certiorari by Bukeni Gyabi Fred (Musoke-Kibuuka J)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council [2008] 2 EA 300
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.