Wakilii

Sande Akuzewo v Jinja Municipal Council (Misc Cause 6 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 221 · 2023 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of administrative decision halting construction works
Decision
Application for judicial review allowed; decision of Town Clerk quashed; applicant permitted to continue construction works and awarded compensation and damages

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

Held that the Town Clerk of Jinja Municipal Council acted with procedural impropriety in halting the applicant's construction works without affording her a hearing. The administrative decision was unfair and unreasonable, violating principles of natural justice guaranteed under Article 42 of the Constitution. Orders of certiorari and prohibition were granted, quashing the decision and restraining further interference. Compensation and general damages were awarded for losses occasioned by the unlawful stoppage of works.

Outcome

Application for judicial review allowed; decision of Town Clerk quashed; applicant permitted to continue construction works and awarded compensation and damages

Facts

The applicant was allocated space by Jinja Municipal Council to construct a public toilet. She secured approval of the site plan and commenced construction after engaging stakeholders and contractors. On 11 February 2020, the Town Clerk stopped the construction works, citing complaints from National Water and Sewerage Corporation and neighbours regarding obstruction of access and potential disruption of services. The applicant had not been given prior notice or an opportunity to respond to the complaints. She sought judicial review, arguing that the decision was made illegally, irrationally, and with procedural impropriety, as she was not afforded a fair hearing before the stoppage order was issued.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises issues for judicial review
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • An order of Certiorari is issued quashing the decision of the Town Clerk Jinja Municipal Council dated 11th February 2020 stopping the applicant from the construction works.
  • An order of Prohibition restraining the Respondent from interfering with the construction works.
  • The Applicant is awarded compensation for loss of UGX 12,532,000 occasioned by the Respondent's decision to halt the construction works.
  • The Applicant is awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000 with Interest of 10% per annum from the date of ruling until payment in full.
  • The applicant is awarded the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds — Procedural Impropriety
There are three traditional grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. An applicant must demonstrate that the administrative decision complained of is tainted with one or more of these grounds.
Fair Hearing — Duty to Act Fairly — Administrative Decisions with Adverse Effects
The duty to act fairly is specifically applicable to administrative decisions that are likely to have serious adverse effects on someone's rights, interests or status. Where a decision will adversely affect a person's economic rights or livelihood, the decision-maker must afford that person a fair hearing before making the decision.
Fair Treatment in Administrative Action — Article 42 of the Constitution
Article 42 of the Constitution guarantees the right to fair treatment in administrative action. Any person appearing before any administrative official or body has a right to be treated justly and fairly and has a right to apply to a court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against them.
Judicial Review — Scope — Public Law versus Private Law
Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is designed to ensure that public powers are exercised in accordance with basic standards of legality, fairness and rationality. Where a relationship is purely contractual and not regulated by statute or involving the exercise of a statutory power, the dispute is one of private law and judicial review is not the appropriate remedy.
Prerogative Orders — Certiorari and Prohibition — Conditions for Grant
The prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition are discretionary remedies. Certiorari is designed to quash decisions which are ultra vires, vitiated by error, or arbitrary and oppressive. Prohibition serves to prohibit the happening of an act or decision which would be ultra vires. These orders are designed to control inferior courts, tribunals, and administrative authorities in the exercise of their powers.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Damages
Under Rule 8 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, the court may award damages on an application for judicial review where the applicant has included a claim for damages in the motion and the court is satisfied that if the claim had been made in an action, the applicant could have been awarded damages.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (21)

  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
  • Clear Channel Independent (U) Ltd v PPDA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 380 of 2008)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Dr. Stella Nyanzi v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 304 of 2018)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Limited v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2016)
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Kassibo Joshua v Commissioner of Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2007)
  • Ignatius Loyola Malungu v Inspector General of Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 59 of 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 196
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] AC 374
  • His Worship Aggrey Bwiire v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009)
  • Oyaro v Kitgum Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 7 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 40
  • Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] CanLII 699 (SCC)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors Cooperative Society Ltd v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2016) [2018] UGHCCD 6
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 353 of 2005)
  • The King v Electricity Commissioners Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee [1924] 1 KB 171
  • Re An Application by Bikoba Gymkhan Club [1963] EA 473
  • R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
  • R V. National Council for Dental Technicians, Exparte Meatrl (1935) 1 OB 704

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sande Akuzewo v Jinja Municipal Council (Misc Cause 6 of 2020) [2023] UGHC 221 (1 September 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.