Wakilii

Ssemakula v Gulu University (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 374 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging dismissal from employment by University Appointments Board — preliminary objections raised
Decision
Application struck out on preliminary objections. Matter may proceed via internal statutory appeal to University Staff Tribunal.

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 judicial review was premature. The Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act provides for an internal appeal to the University Staff Tribunal within fourteen days of notification of a dismissal decision. The applicant filed for judicial review on 15 February 2024 without first exhausting this statutory remedy, despite having received the dismissal letter by 7 February 2024 and obtaining some documents by 12 February 2024. While the dismissal involves a public law matter amenable to judicial review, rule 7A(1)(b) of the Judicial Review Rules requires exhaustion of existing remedies before seeking judicial review. Application struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out on preliminary objections. Matter may proceed via internal statutory appeal to University Staff Tribunal.

Facts

The applicant, Dr. Ssemakula, was Dean of the Faculty of Law at Gulu University, appointed senior lecturer in 2016 and promoted to Dean in July 2022. In June 2023 he applied for promotion to Associate Professor. During vetting, the University Sub Committee identified inconsistencies in the names and dates of birth on the applicant's academic documents — showing birth date as 25 July 1983 on multiple documents but claiming via statutory declaration in November 2023 that he was born on 25 January 1978. The applicant was invited to multiple hearings in October and December 2023 and was interdicted on 8 December 2023. A formal hearing before the Appointments Board was scheduled for 31 January 2024. The applicant did not attend, claiming illness on 30 January 2024. The Board proceeded in his absence and on 1 February 2024 dismissed him for professional and ethical misconduct relating to alleged falsification of documents. The applicant requested the record of proceedings on 7 February 2024 to enable him to appeal to the Staff Tribunal. He received some documents on 12 February 2024 but filed this judicial review application on 15 February 2024 instead of appealing to the Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review is premature because the applicant failed to exhaust the internal remedy of appealing to the University Staff Tribunal provided under section 57 of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act.
  2. Whether the decision to dismiss the applicant is a public law matter amenable to judicial review or a private law matter properly brought before the Industrial Court.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2024 struck out.
  • 80% of taxed costs awarded to the Respondent.
  • Court expressed that should the Applicant pursue the internal appeal channel, the circumstances preventing timely appeal should be considered judiciously in the interest of justice.

Rules and key headnotes

Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Requirement to Appeal to Statutory Tribunal Before Seeking Judicial Review
Where an Act of Parliament provides an internal appellate mechanism such as a University Staff Tribunal with power to confirm, vary, amend or set aside a decision, and expressly permits judicial review only after exhausting that remedy, an applicant must first exhaust the statutory appeal before seeking judicial review, and failure to do so renders the judicial review application premature.
Judicial Review — Policy Rationale for Exhaustion of Remedies — Rule 7A(1)(b) Judicial Review Rules
The requirement to exhaust existing internal remedies before seeking judicial review serves multiple policy purposes: to avoid unjustified short-cuts into judges' dockets, to decongest courts, to prevent abuse of judicial review as a matter of fashion or course, to avoid rendering appellate processes redundant, and to allow competent appellate bodies to perform their statutory functions.
Public Law vs Private Law — Decisions of Public Universities Amenable to Judicial Review
A decision by a public university to dismiss a staff member pursuant to its Human Resources Manual made under statutory authority is a public law decision amenable to judicial review, not a private law employment dispute, where the decision invokes a policy rooted in an Act of Parliament and concerns enforcement of the right to just and fair treatment rather than enforcement of private contractual terms.
Right to Access Court — Article 42 Constitution — Relationship with Procedural Requirements
Article 42 of the Constitution, which gives every person the right to apply to a court of law where they have not been treated justly and fairly by an administrative body, does not grant an automatic immediate right to judicial review bypassing statutory appeal procedures; rather, it leaves open to the aggrieved person to invoke the appropriate mode of accessing court as provided by different laws, including compliance with requirements for judicial review.

Legislation cited (30)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.42
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.20
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.22
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.41(d)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.50(3)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.52
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.53
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.53(5)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.57
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.57(1)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.57(2)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.57(3)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act No. 7 of 2001 s.72(f)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.14(2)(a)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36(1)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36(2)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36(3)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.2(1)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3A
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7A
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7A(1)(b)
  • Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act Cap 224
  • Gulu University Human Resource Manual 2017 s.15.1.2(b)
  • Gulu University Human Resource Manual 2017 s.15.1.2(g)
  • Gulu University Human Resource Manual 2017 s.15.1.2(y)
  • Gulu University Human Resource Manual 2017 s.15.1.2(aa)
  • Gulu University Human Resource Manual 2017 s.16.8.5(d)
  • Gulu University Human Resource Manual 2017 s.16.8.5.4.1

Cases cited (27)

  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Mukasa v Kanyike (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022)
  • Everett Vs. Ribands
  • Kalou and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2001)
  • Kasibo v Commissioner of Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2007)
  • Katuntu and Kasana v MTN Uganda Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 248 of 2012)
  • Munagomba and Semuwemba v Uganda Christian University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 22 of 2017)
  • Owor and Others v Gulu University (Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007)
  • Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Others (Civil Application No. 353 of 2005)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors Cooperative Society Ltd v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2016)
  • Bwengye v Uganda Christian University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2017)
  • Davy v Spelthorne Borough Council [1934] 3 All ER 278
  • Polar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue [2002] QB 48
  • R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers' Markets Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 233
  • General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] 2 All ER 337
  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
  • Matovu and Others v Sseviri (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1978)
  • Gakyaro v Civil Aviation Authority (Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2006)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Kitamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Shamir Production LLC and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 28 of 2010)
  • Microcare Insurance Ltd v Uganda Insurance Commission (Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2009)
  • Uganda Crop Industries Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 5 of 2009)
  • Classy Photomart Ltd v Commissioner Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2009)
  • Shamir Productions LLC and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 28 of 2010)
  • R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex parte Calveley [1986] 1 All ER 257
  • Preston v IRC [1985] AC 852

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemakula v Gulu University (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 374 (27 May 2024)
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.