Wakilii

Sserumaga v Makerere University Council and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 83 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of university disciplinary decisions
Decision
Application dismissed for prematurity; applicant directed to exhaust statutory remedies

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 an application for judicial review is premature where the applicant has not exhausted existing remedies available under statute. The Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 provides a statutory appeal mechanism from Senate to University Council. Where Parliament has provided appeal procedures, judicial review will only rarely be allowed to attack an appealable decision. The applicant filed for judicial review before the University Senate had heard his appeal and before exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal to the University Council. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed for prematurity; applicant directed to exhaust statutory remedies

Facts

The applicant was a third-year student at Makerere University College of Veterinary Medicine. He was charged with soliciting another person to sit a continuous assessment test on his behalf. The College Examination Irregularities and Appeals Committee dismissed him from the course and university and cancelled his examination results for Semester 1, 2018/19. He appealed to the University Academic Policies and Appeals Committee, which upheld the dismissal on 1st and 7th October 2019. He then appealed to the University Senate on 4th March 2020. Before the Senate could hear his appeal, he filed this application for judicial review on the same date. The Senate had not yet sat to consider the appeal by the time of filing, partly due to the COVID-19 lockdown.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents are properly joined as parties.
  2. Whether the respondents followed the right procedure at the hearings before reaching the decision to dismiss the applicant from the university.
  3. Whether the application for judicial review was prematurely filed before exhausting internal remedies.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Remedies — Requirement to Exhaust Statutory Appeal Mechanisms
Where a statute provides a specific remedy or appeal procedure, an applicant must exhaust those remedies before seeking judicial review, and the court must exercise restraint to allow the relevant statutory bodies to deal with the dispute as provided in the statute.
Judicial Review — Prematurity — Filing Before Exhaustion of Internal Remedies
An application for judicial review is premature and improperly brought where the applicant has not exhausted existing remedies available under the law, including pending appeals to statutory bodies that have not yet been heard.
Administrative Law — University Disciplinary Proceedings — Statutory Appeal Framework
Under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001, a person deprived of an award by the Senate may appeal to the University Council, and this statutory appeal mechanism must be exhausted before recourse to judicial review.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Conditions for Grant of Judicial Review
In considering an application for judicial review, the court must satisfy itself that the application is amenable for judicial review, that the aggrieved person has exhausted existing remedies available within the public body or under the law, and that the matter involves an administrative public body or official.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (10)

  • Nasinyama Benard v Makerere University (High Court Civil Suit No. 17 of 2019)
  • Catherine Kanabahita v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 92 of 2014)
  • Twinamatsiko Elly v Makerere University & 2 Others
  • Chief Constable of North Wales v Evana [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Fuelex Uganda Ltd v Attorney General and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2014)
  • Micro Care Insurance Limited v Uganda Insurance Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 218 of 2008)
  • Preston v IRC [1995] 2 All ER 327
  • Charles Nsubuga v Eng Badru Kiggundu & 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 148 of 2015)
  • Bernard Mulage v Fineserve Africa Limited & 3 Others (Petition No. 503 of 2014)
  • Speaker of National Assembly v Ngenga Karume [2008] 1 KLR 425

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserumaga v Makerere University Council and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 83 (17 May 2022)
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.