Wakilii

Segulani v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 32 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 188 · 2020 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of a Commission of Inquiry directive
Decision
Order of certiorari granted quashing the Commission's directive; permanent injunction and damages refused

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

A Commission of Inquiry established to investigate land acquisition processes exceeded its investigative mandate by directing police and administrative officers to restrain a party from dealing with land that was under adjudication by a competent court. The Commission's investigative role does not confer power to issue interim preservation orders; such orders must be left to courts exercising judicial power. Order of certiorari granted quashing the ultra vires directive.

Outcome

Order of certiorari granted quashing the Commission's directive; permanent injunction and damages refused

Facts

The Commission of Inquiry into land acquisition processes was established in 2017. Faith Namyanya and Laban Katamba lodged a complaint with the Commission regarding ownership of land comprised in Mengo Block 358, which they claimed overlapped with land registered to David Segulani. The same parties were litigating ownership of the same land in HCCS No. 774 of 2016 pending in the High Court Land Division. On January 29, 2019, the Commission's secretary wrote to the Resident District Commissioner and District Police Commander Wakiso directing them to ensure Segulani and his agents cease all activities on the disputed land with immediate effect while the Commission investigated. The letter warned that failure to comply with the directive would constitute an offence for which criminal charges could be preferred. Segulani had been invited by the Commission to give a witness statement and his lawyers made written representations. The Commission was aware of the pending court case between the parties.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for judicial review
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • An order of certiorari shall issue quashing the Commission's letter dated January 28, 2019 that directed the RDC and DPC to ensure the Applicant and his agents cease activities and transaction on Mengo Block 358.
  • The prayer for a permanent injunction stopping the Commission from investigating the land registration and adjudicative processes of the dispute over Mengo Block 358 is declined.
  • The prayer for general and aggravated damages is declined.
  • As the Applicant was partially successful, the Respondents shall severally and jointly pay 40% of the taxed costs of this Cause to the Applicant.
  • MA No. 274 of 2019 between the same parties for a temporary injunction has been overtaken by the above orders and is closed with no order as to costs therein.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality — Ultra Vires — Commission of Inquiry Exceeding Statutory Mandate
A Commission of Inquiry established under the Commission of Inquiry Act Cap. 166 to investigate land acquisition processes and make recommendations does not have power to issue directives to administrative or police officers to take charge of land or restrain parties from dealing with land. Such interim preservation orders can only be made by a court exercising judicial power under Article 126 of the Constitution.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Grounds — Ultra Vires — Administrative Body Usurping Judicial Function
Where the subject matter of a Commission of Inquiry's investigation is also under adjudication by a competent court, a directive by the Commission to preserve the status quo of the disputed property is ultra vires its powers as a purely investigative body whose mandate is to investigate and make recommendations for reform.
Administrative Law — Commission of Inquiry — Powers — Sanctions for Non-Compliance
Under Section 9 of the Commission of Inquiry Act Cap. 166, a Commission is authorised to cause prosecution only of witnesses who give false information or fabricate evidence under Sections 94 and 97 of the Penal Code Act. A Commission has no legal basis to threaten prosecution of administrative officers for non-compliance with the Commission's directives.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Bodies — Commissions of Inquiry
A Commission of Inquiry performing public functions is amenable to judicial review. The crucial consideration is whether there is a public law element to a public decision. Judicial review is designed to prevent excess and abuse of power by public authorities, and is primarily concerned with statutory power.
Administrative Law — Fair Hearing — Investigative Bodies
Fair hearing is observed when an administrative body gives an opportunity to a respondent to present their case whether in writing or orally. Where an applicant was heard orally by a Commission and his lawyers made written representations, fair hearing requirements are satisfied under the special circumstances of an investigative function.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kuluo and Others v Attorney General and Others (HCMC No. 106 of 2010)
  • Sebutinde v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 5 of 2005)
  • Kulata v Attorney General (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2018)
  • Dott Services v Attorney General (HCMC No. 137 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Segulani v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 32 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 188 (11 May 2020)
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.