Wakilii

Rutaro v Makerere University & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause 23 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 85 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging the lawfulness of an Annual General Meeting of the 2nd Respondent and elections conducted therein.
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to both Respondents.

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 judicial review application was time barred against the 2nd Respondent but proceeded to decide on the merits. The Court found the application amenable for judicial review. However, the Applicant failed to establish grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the convening and conduct of the Annual General Meeting of the Makerere University Convocation held on 30th December 2022. The Court dismissed the application with costs to both Respondents.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to both Respondents.

Facts

The Applicant, a member of the Makerere University Convocation, challenged the lawfulness of the Annual General Meeting held on 30th December 2022 and the elections conducted therein. The Applicant alleged that the AGM was irregularly convened, the notice was insufficient, the Executive Committee's term had expired, the members' roll was defective, and the meeting was marred with chaos. The Academic Registrar initially published a notice for an AGM on 17th December 2022, but the Convocation Chairperson later published a notice for 30th December 2022. There was confusion regarding the date until an agreement was reached on 12th December 2022 to hold the AGM on 30th December 2022. The Applicant stood for the position of Treasurer and participated in the elections but was unsuccessful. The Applicant sought judicial review seeking declarations and orders of certiorari and mandamus.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable for judicial review?
  2. Whether the application discloses any sufficient grounds for judicial review?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to both Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Time Limitation — Compliance with Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules
An application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose unless the court considers there is good reason for extending the period. Failure to bring the application within the prescribed time and failure to seek and obtain a court order extending the time renders the application time barred and incompetent.
Competence of Affidavits — Deponent's Knowledge versus Written Authority
A deponent of an affidavit in judicial review proceedings need not have written authority from the party on whose behalf the affidavit is sworn, provided the deponent has personal knowledge of the facts and the means to swear positively to those facts. The requirement under Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules for written authority to appear, plead, or act does not extend to the giving of evidence.
Amenability — Public Body and Public Law Matter
For a matter to be amenable for judicial review, it must involve a public body in a public law matter. The court must be satisfied that the body under challenge is a public body whose activities can be controlled by judicial review and that the subject matter involves claims based on public law principles, not the enforcement of private law rights.
Grounds for Judicial Review — Illegality, Irrationality, and Procedural Impropriety
Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the decision itself. A public authority will be found to have acted unlawfully if it made a decision or did something without legal power (illegality), so unreasonably that no reasonable decision-maker could have come to the same decision (irrationality), or without observing the rules of natural justice (procedural impropriety).
Right to Fair Hearing — Application to Administrative Bodies versus Tribunals
The full application of Article 28 of the Constitution on the right to a fair hearing applies to persons appearing in matters before a court or tribunal established by law. Where a person appears before administrative officials or bodies that are not acting as tribunals, the right to just and fair treatment is governed by Article 42 of the Constitution, which entitles the person to apply to a court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against them.
Construction of Institutional Constitutions — Delegation of Authority
Where an institutional constitution delegates authority to convene meetings to an office-holder, the delegation does not diminish the principal's right to carry out the delegated task. A person acting under delegated authority cannot exercise such authority contrary to or beyond the limits of the delegation. The principal retains the right to perform the delegated role without having to delegate.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (18)

  • Baligasiima v Kiiza & Others (HCMA No. 1495 of 2016)
  • Mukuye & Others v Madhvani Group Ltd (HCMA No. 821 of 2013)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon & 2 Others (HC Misc. App. No. 0430 of 2021)
  • Prof. Phillip Alston v Initiative for Social & Economic Rights (ISER) Ltd & Others (HCMA No. 550 of 2022)
  • Prof. Mahmood Mamdani & Anor v Ikiring Judith & Anor (HCMA No. 102 of 2021)
  • BankOne Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd (HCMA No. 645 of 2020)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (SC Civil Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (SC Civil Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • Dawson Kadope v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMA No. 40 of 2019)
  • I.P Mugumya v Attorney General (HCMA No. 116 of 2015)
  • Hilton v Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 61
  • Leads Insurance Co. Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority (CACA No. 237 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimmire & Others (CACA No. 208 of 2013)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew & Others v Attorney General & Others (HCMC No. 106 of 2010)
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (HC MC No. 212 of 2018)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (1985) AC 375
  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (HC MC No. 007 of 2016)
  • Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 762

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rutaro v Makerere University & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause 23 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 85 (15 May 2024)
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.