Wakilii

St. Balikuddebe Market Stalls space and lockup shops owners Association Limited (SSLOA) v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 328 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 37 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review under Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition
Decision
Application granted; KCCA prohibited from assuming management of the market without prior compensation

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 held that KCCA's directive requiring the applicant market association to hand over management of St. Balikuddembe Market without prior compensation was ultra vires, irrational and procedurally improper. The court found that while KCCA has statutory authority under the Market Act to control markets, any withdrawal of management from a private owner requires prompt, fair and adequate compensation under Article 26(2) of the Constitution before taking possession. Orders of certiorari and prohibition were issued quashing the directive and restraining enforcement.

Outcome

Application granted; KCCA prohibited from assuming management of the market without prior compensation

Facts

The applicant is a registered company owning land comprising St. Balikuddembe Market in Kampala. On 3 November 2020, KCCA's Executive Director wrote to the applicant directing that management and operations of the market be handed over to KCCA, citing a Presidential directive of 25 September 2020 regarding repossession of government markets. The applicant held registered leasehold titles for the market land, issued following an earlier 2009 Presidential directive that had allowed the market to be leased to the association. KCCA claimed authority under the Market Act 1942 to control markets within its jurisdiction. The applicant contended the directive violated its constitutional property rights under Article 26 and sought judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a fit and proper case for judicial review.
  2. Whether the Respondent's decision and intended actions are ultra vires, irregular and illegal.
  3. Whether the actions of the Respondent contravene the Applicant's right to property.
  4. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • St Balikudembe (Owino) Market is currently privately owned and managed by the Applicant.
  • An order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the directive of the Executive Director of the Respondent to take charge and assume the management of St. Balikudembe (Owino) Market.
  • An order of prohibition is hereby issued restraining the Respondent from enforcing the directive of its Executive Director to assume the management of St. Balikudembe (Owino) Market and to cause the elections of the leaders.
  • The Respondent pays costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Body Decisions — Administrative Actions Affecting Property Rights
Where a public body exercises statutory powers in a manner that affects property rights and obligations enforceable at law, and procedural impropriety or ultra vires action is alleged, the matter is amenable to judicial review regardless of whether private law rights are also engaged.
Administrative Law — Grounds for Judicial Review — Illegality, Irrationality and Procedural Impropriety
To succeed in judicial review, an applicant must demonstrate that the impugned decision is tainted with illegality (acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires), irrationality (decision so outrageous no reasonable authority would make it), or procedural impropriety (failure to observe natural justice or statutory procedures).
Constitutional Law — Property Rights — Compulsory Acquisition — Prior Compensation Requirement
Article 26(2) of the Constitution prohibits compulsory deprivation of property except where there is prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession or acquisition. Government cannot acquire property or withdraw management rights from a private owner without satisfying this constitutional requirement first.
Administrative Law — Market Regulation — KCCA Powers — Delegation and Withdrawal of Management
Under the Market Act 1942 read with the KCCA Act 2010, KCCA has authority to establish and control markets or vest management in such persons as it deems fit. However, withdrawal of vested management rights from a private entity constitutes compulsory acquisition requiring prior compensation under Article 26(2) of the Constitution.
Administrative Law — Ultra Vires Actions — Directives Without Compensation — Procedural Impropriety
An administrative directive requiring immediate handover of management of privately owned property without provision for or payment of compensation is ultra vires, irrational and procedurally improper, warranting orders of certiorari and prohibition.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimire & Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Limited v Arua Municipal Council (MC No. 0003 of 2016)
  • Nazarali Punjwani v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (HCCS No. 07 of 2005)
  • Grace Namulondo & 3 Ors v Jone Johns Serwanga Salongo & 2 Ors (MC No. 1 of 2019)
  • Katuntu Ibrahim v St. Balikuddembe Market Stalls, Space and Lock-Up Shops Owners Association Limited (SSLOA) (HCCS No. 211 of 2013)
  • Fuelex Uganda Ltd v The Attorney General & Others (HCMC No. 48 of 2014)
  • Dr. Daniel K.N. Semambo v National Animal Genetic Resource Centre (HCMC No. 30 of 2017)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asumani & Peter Magelah (SCCA No. 2 of 2014)
  • St. Balikuddembe Market Stalls, Space and Lock-Up Shops Owners Association Limited (SSLOA) v Kampala Capital City Authority (HCCS No. 353 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

St. Balikuddebe Market Stalls space and lockup shops owners Association Limited (SSLOA) v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 328 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 37 (2 June 2021)
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.