Wakilii

Ssentamu Halidi and 5 Others v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No.23 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 295 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to quash the university's decision to cancel admissions
Decision
Application dismissed with no orders of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus granted

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

The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that Makerere University's decision to cancel the applicants' admissions was reasonable where the applicants submitted fraudulent CGPA information that fell below the minimum requirement of 4.00 for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery. The court found the decision was not tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, and that the applicants bore responsibility for ensuring accurate information was submitted regardless of alleged flaws in the online application system.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no orders of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus granted

Facts

Six applicants applied to Makerere University for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery as privately sponsored students using the university's online application system in 2016. They were admitted. In October 2016, following a request by another student for name correction, the university discovered discrepancies in the applicants' CGPAs. The applicants were invited to show cause why their admissions should not be cancelled. On 20 October 2016 they appeared before the Academic Registrar Department, which found their submitted CGPAs did not tally with their actual transcripts. The applicants claimed they left their documents with an unidentified man in a tent to complete the online application. On 21 March 2017 an Ad hoc Committee of the Senate Admission Committee found the applicants had used forged documents showing CGPAs of 4.69 to 4.83, whereas their actual CGPAs ranged from 3.29 to 3.64 and one was unclassified, all below the required minimum of 4.00. The university cancelled their admissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants raise any grounds for judicial review.
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies sought in the application.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality, Irrationality, and Procedural Impropriety — Standard of Review
For an applicant to succeed in judicial review, it must be proved that the decision made was tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process through which a decision was made, not with the decision itself.
Administrative Law — Rationality/Unreasonableness — Test for Gross Unreasonableness
A decision is irrational or unreasonable when there has been such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done that no reasonable authority addressing itself to the facts and law before it would have made such a decision. Such a decision is said to be in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards.
Administrative Law — University Admissions — Burden on Applicant to Ensure Accurate Information
The onus is upon an applicant for admission to ensure that the relevant information requested is accurate and properly submitted to the relevant authority. An applicant cannot escape responsibility for fraudulent information by claiming reliance on a flawed online system or an unidentified third party who assisted with the application process.
Administrative Law — University Admissions — Interpretation of Advertisement Requirements
Where an advertisement for university admissions states general minimum qualifications but directs applicants to view further specific requirements for particular courses on a notice board or website, an institution is entitled to apply those specific requirements in deciding whether to admit or cancel an admission. Applicants are bound by the full requirements including those available at the specified locations.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act s.36
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.6
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.45(1)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.45(2)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.45(3)
  • Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 s.46(3)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27

Cases cited (4)

  • John Jet Mwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssentamu Halidi and 5 Others v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No.23 of 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 295 (13 July 2018)
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.