Stream Aviation Limited v The Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Application No.377 of 2008) (Miscellaneous Application No.377 of 2008)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court granted certiorari and prohibition, quashing the Civil Aviation Authority's arbitrary decision to ground the applicant's aircraft on 5 July 2008, finding the decision was not based on the complaint cited by the respondent (which was received 26 days after grounding) and that the applicant had a valid lease agreement. The court refused mandamus as unnecessary and declined to award damages through judicial review, advising the applicant to pursue damages through ordinary civil suit. Costs awarded to the applicant.

Outcome

Prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition granted; mandamus and damages refused; respondent ordered to pay costs

Facts

Stream Aviation Limited, a company incorporated in France, operated civil aviation business in Uganda with an Antonov aircraft (AN.12BK, registration 4L-ELE) leased from Varty Pacific Inc. The aircraft was engaged in cargo transportation for the UPDF. On 5 July 2008, the Civil Aviation Authority grounded the aircraft while it was undergoing routine repairs, denying the applicant access to complete repairs or use the aircraft. The respondent claimed on 1 August 2008 that it received a complaint from Anatoliy Lovin alleging the aircraft was fitted or about to be fitted with stolen engines belonging to another aircraft. The applicant asserted it suffered business losses of US$700,000 by the time of filing. The respondent also contended the applicant had no lease agreement, which the applicant disproved by producing a valid lease agreement. The applicant sought judicial review on 11 August 2008 after obtaining leave on 8 August 2008.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's decision to ground the applicant's aircraft was ultra vires, arbitrary and oppressive, warranting the prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition.
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the prerogative order of mandamus compelling release of the aircraft.
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to damages through this judicial review application.

Orders

• The prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition are granted.
• The respondent's decision to ground the applicant's aircraft and deny it clearance to operate at Entebbe Airport is quashed.
• The respondent is prohibited from continuing to deny the applicant access to and use of its aircraft.
• The application for mandamus is refused.
• The application for damages is refused.
• The respondent shall pay the costs of this motion and the chamber summons to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature Act s.36(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 42A Rule 4(2)
• Civil Aviation Act Cap. 354
• Government Proceedings Act s.20(3)

Cases cited (5)

• R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
• R v National Council for Dental Technicians, ex parte Neate [1953] 1 QB 704
• R v Electricity Commissioners, ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee [1924] 1 KB 171
• In Re An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club (1963) E.A. 473
• Shah Vs. Attorney General (No.3) (1970) E.A. 543

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Stream Aviation FZC v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 9 of 2010)
• Comtel Integrators Africa Ltd v Auditor General (Miscellaneous Cause 17 of 2010)

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