Sansa Otim v Makerere University (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 258 OF 2016)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court held that Makerere University's Appointments Board was in contempt of the orders of its Staff Appeals Tribunal by failing to implement a directive to reconsider the applicant's promotion to Senior Lecturer. The court granted declarations that the university's refusal was illegal, unjust, and discriminatory, and ordered mandamus compelling compliance with the tribunal's orders. The university was ordered to pay compensation for contempt and taxed costs previously awarded by the tribunal.

Outcome

Application granted with declarations and orders of mandamus compelling Makerere University to comply with its Staff Appeals Tribunal orders and pay compensation and costs to the applicant

Facts

Dr. Julianne Sansa Otim applied for promotion to Senior Lecturer at Makerere University in 2012. Her papers were vetted and returned with a positive recommendation for promotion. The Appointments Board refused to promote her despite the recommendation. She appealed to the university's Staff Appeals Tribunal, which allowed her appeal and issued specific orders directing that two additional publications be vetted and that the Appointments Board reconsider her promotion within specified timeframes. The university failed to comply with these orders. The applicant then brought this judicial review application seeking declarations that the university was in contempt of the tribunal's orders and mandamus compelling compliance.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent is in contempt of its Staff Appeals Tribunal and if so whether this conduct should be punished by the High Court as contempt of court
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the declarations and orders being sought in the application
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the orders of mandamus being sought in the application
4. What remedies are available to the applicant

Orders

• Declaration that the respondent is in contempt of the orders of its Staff Appeals Tribunal to consider promotion of the applicant.
• The respondent shall pay the applicant compensation of UGX 10,000,000 (Ten Million).
• Declaration that the respondent's decision to withhold or refusal to implement the orders of its Staff Appeals Tribunal to consider appointment of the applicant to the rank of Senior Lecturer within the ordered time frame was illegal, unjust and discriminatory.
• Order of mandamus compelling the respondent to perform its statutory duty and implement the orders of its Staff Appeals Tribunal and consider the appointment of the applicant to the rank of Senior Lecturer.
• Order of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the money decreed by its Staff Appeals Tribunal as taxed costs of UGX 40,056,030.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (17)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 254
• Constitution of Uganda Article 50
• Constitution of Uganda Article 42
• Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
• Pensions Act s.101
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 3
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 4
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 6
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 7
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 8
• Pensions Act Rules 2000 Rule 30
• Pensions Act Rules 2000 Rule 31
• Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.55
• Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.56
• Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.57
• Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.55(2)(d)

Cases cited (3)

• Charles Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 1999)
• Hon. John Ken Lukyamuzi v Attorney General & Electoral Commission (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
• General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] ALLER 627

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Nabawanuka & 7 Others v Makerere University & 2 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2019)

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