Wakilii

Sentongo Abdulnoor Kyamundu and Others v Justice Forum (JEEMA) and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 93 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 75 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking declarations and orders regarding alleged ultra vires actions by political party leadership
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed as time-barred

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

An application for judicial review challenging political party leadership decisions made in October 2020 was dismissed as time-barred where filed in April 2025, more than four years after the cause of action arose. The court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 36(7) of the Judicature Act and Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules applied from when grounds first arose in 2020, not from subsequent related decisions in 2025. The applicants failed to apply for extension of time or provide good reason for the delay.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed as time-barred

Facts

The applicants, members of Justice Forum (JEEMA) political party, sought judicial review of decisions by party leadership extending their tenure beyond constitutional limits. The party leadership's term expired in October 2020. On 8 October 2020, the leadership resolved to extend their terms for two and a half years. Subsequently, on 12 May 2023, the National Executive Committee extended the tenure by one year. Further extensions were made on 16 January 2024 and 28 February 2025, extending tenure for three more years. The applicants filed their judicial review application on 7 April 2025, seeking declarations that these extensions were ultra vires the party constitution, orders quashing the resolutions, injunctions restraining the respondents from acting in official capacity, appointment of interim leadership, and damages of UGX 100 million. The respondents opposed on grounds including that the application was time-barred, the applicants lacked locus standi, and internal party remedies had not been exhausted.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is time barred
  2. Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring this application
  3. Whether the application meets the test for grant of judicial review remedies sought

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Commencement of Limitation Period — When Cause of Action First Arises
Under Section 36(7) of the Judicature Act and Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, 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, and the limitation period runs from when the cause of action first arose, not from subsequent related decisions.
Administrative Law — Extension of Time — Requirements for Enlargement — Application by Notice of Motion
Where an applicant seeks to file a judicial review application outside the three-month statutory period, the applicant must make a formal application by notice of motion for extension of time providing justifiable reasons for non-compliance with the statutory timeline, and failure to do so is fatal to the application.
Judicial Review — Discretion to Extend Time — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Good Reason Required
The court's discretion to extend time for filing a judicial review application must be exercised judiciously and based on good reasons depending on the circumstances of the case, and such discretion is not exercised in the absence of a formal application for extension.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (1)

  • Dott Services Limited and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 133 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sentongo Abdulnoor Kyamundu and Others v Justice Forum (JEEMA) and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 93 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 75 (20 June 2025)
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.