Wakilii

Taremwa Kamishani & 8 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0038 of 2012)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 101 · 2012 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging acquisition of land for road construction before payment of compensation — ruling on preliminary objections
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed — main application to proceed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 preliminary objections raised by the respondents. The court held that a representative order is sufficient authority for parties to swear affidavits on behalf of themselves and others in the same interest without obtaining further authority. The application was not time barred because the cause of action arose in March 2012 when the respondents started grading the land, not earlier when preparatory works commenced. Judicial review is the proper procedure to enforce compliance with constitutional requirements for land acquisition where the applicants seek to forestall unlawful taking of possession before compensation.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed — main application to proceed

Facts

Nine applicants obtained a representative order to sue on behalf of themselves and over 5000 persons whose land lay along a road construction project. The Uganda National Roads Authority handed over the site to Reynolds Construction Company in August 2011 for road construction. The applicants heard of the project and contacted the respondents for compensation. In March 2012, the respondents started grading at Rwentobo in Ntungamo District. The applicants filed for judicial review seeking to forestall taking of possession of their land before compensation was paid as required by Article 26 of the Constitution. The respondents raised preliminary objections that: (1) the 8th and 9th applicants had no authority to swear affidavits on behalf of the rest; (2) the application was time barred under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 which requires applications to be filed within three months; and (3) judicial review was not the proper procedure and the applicants should have filed an ordinary suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the 8th and 9th Applicants have capacity or authority to swear affidavits on behalf of the rest named in the representative order and the other 5000 persons.
  2. Whether the application for judicial review is time barred under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009.
  3. Whether judicial review is the proper procedure to adopt in this case.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections overruled and dismissed.
  • Costs of the preliminary objections awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Representative Actions — Authority to Swear Affidavits
In a representative suit, a court order granting leave to sue on behalf of numerous persons is sufficient authority for the representative parties to swear affidavits on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons represented, without requiring further authority from those persons.
Civil Procedure — Representative Actions — Number of Affidavits Required
Where a representative order names multiple applicants, it is not necessary for all named applicants to file affidavits. Any one or more of the named representatives may file affidavits in that capacity, as requiring all representatives to file identical affidavits would defeat the purpose of representative actions and serve only to proliferate the record.
Judicial Review — Time Limitation — Cause of Action
For purposes of determining when the three-month limitation period under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 begins to run, the cause of action arises when the impending threat of unlawful administrative action becomes real and apparent, not when preparatory steps are taken or when the applicant first hears rumours of the intended action.
Judicial Review — Proper Procedure — Enforcement of Constitutional Procedure
Judicial review is the proper procedure where applicants seek to enforce compliance with the constitutional procedure for land acquisition under Article 26 of the Constitution, rather than to assert proprietary rights in the land. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 36 of the Judicature Act extends to inquiring into the legality and procedural propriety of administrative processes for compulsory acquisition of land.
Administrative Law — Land Acquisition — Constitutional Requirements
Article 26(2) of the Constitution prescribes the procedure and preconditions that must be complied with before government can compulsorily acquire land, including prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession. The High Court has jurisdiction to enforce compliance with these constitutional requirements through judicial review.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Makerere University v St Mark Education Institute & Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 378 of 1993)
  • Edrisa Mutaasa & Ors v IGG, Lyantonde District Administration & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 06 of 2010)
  • Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association v Kampala Capital City Authority & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2011)
  • Vincent Kafero & 11 Ors v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Taremwa Kamishani & 8 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0038 of 2012) [2012] UGHC 101 (6 June 2012)
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.