Wakilii

Sekikubo & Ors v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 092 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 26 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging government contract procurement
Decision
Application struck out for lack of locus standi

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

Members of Parliament who challenged a government railway contract on public interest grounds lacked locus standi for judicial review. The court held that applicants must demonstrate violation of personal rights, not merely public rights. Being citizens and MPs does not satisfy the 'personally affected' test required for standing. Application struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi

Facts

Three Members of Parliament applied for judicial review of a contract signed on 30 March 2015 between the Government of Uganda (Ministry of Works and Transport) and China Harbor Engineering Company Limited for the Eastern and Northern Standard Gauge Railway Network Project. The applicants alleged the contract process was illegal, biased, and contrary to public policy. They argued the contract was signed while Parliament was investigating the procurement process. The Government defended that due process was followed, that the project was agreed at an international summit in 2013, and that Parliament's select committee had recommended the project be expedited.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring this application for judicial review.
  2. Whether the application raises issues or grounds for judicial review.
  3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies sought in the application.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Personal Rights Test
An applicant for judicial review must demonstrate violation of a personal right, not merely violation of public rights. Where public rights are involved, the applicant must show special damage and a genuine private interest. Only public bodies may apply for judicial review on grounds of violation of public rights because the impact of such violations is diffused among all citizens.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Members of Parliament
Status as a citizen and Member of Parliament, without more, does not confer sufficient standing to bring judicial review proceedings. An applicant must satisfy the 'personally affected' test and demonstrate how their own rights have been violated, rather than asserting general concern for governance or public interest.
Constitutional Law — Article 42 — Right to Apply to Court
Article 42 of the Constitution gives the right to apply to court only to persons whose right to be treated fairly by an administrative body has been violated. This constitutional provision requires demonstration of a personal administrative decision taken against the applicant.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Busybodies and Mischief Makers
Courts should refuse locus standi to applicants who appear to be mere busybodies or mischief makers. Judicial review is not a vehicle for upholding good governance in the abstract; another elaborate procedure is necessary for that purpose.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Effect of No Locus Standi
Where an applicant lacks locus standi, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the application. The issue of locus standi goes to the jurisdiction of the court and is determinative of the entire matter.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Katuntu & Anor v MTN (U) Limited & Ors (HCCS No. 248 of 2012)
  • IRC Vs National Federation of Self Employed and Small Business [1982] AC 617
  • R Vs Independent Broadcasting Authority, Exparte White House, [1984] times reports April
  • R Vs Secretary of State for Environment exparte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504
  • R Vs HM Inspectorate of Pollution exparte Greenpeace Ltd No 2 [1944]4 All ER 329
  • Tan Eng Hong Vs Attorney General [2012]4 SLR 476
  • Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew Vs Attorney General (2012) SGHC 210

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekikubo & Ors v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 092 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 26 (4 April 2016)
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.