Wakilii

Rev.Fr.Pacuto v Muni University and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 5 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 85 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging termination of employment as university chaplain
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; termination of employment upheld

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 challenging the termination of a university chaplain. The court held that the termination was lawful, having been based on the chaplain's nomination by the diocese and his subsequent appointment to a new position by the bishop. The appointments board followed proper procedures, and the applicant was paid two months' salary in lieu of notice. The court found no illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or bias in the termination process. The preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies were overruled, as the university tribunal was not yet established.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; termination of employment upheld

Facts

The applicant, Rev. Fr. Pacuto Solomon Ngos, was nominated by the Bishop of Arua Diocese and appointed as chaplain of St. Mary's Chaplaincy at Muni University on 4 September 2015 on probation. He was confirmed as permanent staff on 25 April 2017. On 13 January 2021, the bishop appointed the applicant as curate of Indriani Catholic Sub-Parish and simultaneously nominated a replacement chaplain for Muni University. On 18 January 2021, the university secretary instructed the applicant to hand over the chaplaincy. The university's appointments board met on 25 March 2021 and resolved to terminate the applicant's appointment, treating it as a secondment that ended when the diocese nominated a new candidate. The applicant was paid two months' salary in lieu of notice. The applicant challenged the termination through judicial review, arguing he was not accorded a fair hearing and that the termination was unlawful.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is bad in law and improper and not amenable for judicial review since it is an employment labour dispute.
  2. Whether the applicant has exhausted all remedies under the law before seeking judicial review.
  3. Whether the termination of the applicant is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
  4. Whether the 2nd respondent acted with bias, ill will and abused his public office.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections overruled.
  • Application dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Jurisdiction — Employment Disputes — Distinction Between Public Law and Private Rights
Judicial review is available against a public body exercising public functions in a public law matter, but is not used to enforce private rights. A person seeking judicial review must satisfy two requirements: first, that the body under challenge is a public body or performing public functions; second, that the subject matter involves claims based on public law principles, not the enforcement of private rights.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Remedies — Discretion of Court — Non-Existent Tribunal
Even in the face of an alternative remedy, the discretion lies with the High Court to entertain an application for judicial review. Where a statutory tribunal has not been established and is non-existent, an applicant cannot be required to exhaust a remedy that is unavailable, and the court may exercise its discretion to grant judicial review.
Administrative Law — Grounds for Judicial Review — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
For an application for judicial review to succeed, the applicant must show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Illegality occurs when the decision-making authority commits an error of law or acts ultra vires. Irrationality exists when there is gross unreasonableness such that no reasonable authority would have made such a decision. Procedural impropriety involves failure to act fairly or to adhere to procedural rules expressly laid down in statute or legislative instrument.
Employment & Labour — Termination — Secondment — Nomination by Religious Institution
Where a university chaplain's appointment is based on nomination by a religious institution rather than through the normal recruitment process, and the religious institution subsequently nominates a replacement and transfers the original nominee to another position, the university may lawfully terminate the original appointment on the basis that it was a secondment arrangement that ended when the nominating institution withdrew its nomination.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (8)

  • Republic v Attorney General and Registrar of Societies (Miscellaneous Application No. 768 of 2004)
  • Nyongesa & Others v Egerton University College [1990] KLR 693
  • Water and Environment Media Network U Ltd & Others v NEMA & Another (Consolidated Miscellaneous Cause No. 239 of 2020)
  • Dr. Peter v Kyambogo University & Another (HCMA No. 23 of 2017)
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • Kasibo Joshua v Commissioner of Customs URA (HCMA No. 44 of 2007)
  • Mrs. Anny Katabaazi-Bwengye v Uganda Christian University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2017)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] EA 300

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rev.Fr.Pacuto v Muni University and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 5 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 85 (31 March 2023)
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.