Wakilii

Touch Media Limited T/A Touch FM Limited v Uganda Communications Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 44 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash respondent's decision and compel issuance of consent for transfer of broadcasting licence
Decision
Application dismissed on procedural grounds due to parallel civil suit pending on same subject matter

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that where the same set of facts gives rise to both public and private law issues, and the applicant has already commenced proceedings to enforce private law rights by ordinary suit, the court will decline to hear a parallel application for judicial review. The applicant having filed a civil suit in commercial court seeking damages for the respondent's refusal to grant consent to transfer of a broadcasting licence, the present judicial review application addressing the same subject matter was dismissed to avoid conflicting findings between the two proceedings.

Outcome

Application dismissed on procedural grounds due to parallel civil suit pending on same subject matter

Facts

Touch Media Limited operated an FM radio station on broadcasting frequency 95.9Mhz licensed by Uganda Communications Commission. The applicant commenced disposal of its radio station and sought to transfer its broadcasting licence to United States Agency Global Media t/a Voice of America. The respondent withheld the transfer of licence certificate despite the parties allegedly fulfilling all requirements. The applicant filed for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash the respondent's decision and mandamus compelling issuance of a no objection certificate. The respondent opposed, stating it was lawfully investigating the sale and the required conditions had not been met. The applicant had previously filed High Court Civil Suit No. 269 of 2020 against the same respondent seeking monetary compensation over the same refusal to grant consent for licence transfer.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competently filed in this court?
  2. Whether there are legal grounds for judicial review?
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
  4. Whether the respondent's decision complained of is tainted with illegality and irrationality?

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Relationship with Private Law Remedies — Abuse of Process
As a general rule it would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of the process of the court to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed rights to which he is entitled to protection under public law to proceed by way of ordinary action and by this means evade the provisions for judicial review.
Administrative Law — Public Bodies — Public and Private Law Overlap
Certain private law principles such as tort and contract apply to public bodies as well as private individuals. The same set of facts may give rise to issues of both public and private law where a public body has power to take a decision which will affect or vary a private law right.
Judicial Review — Scope and Exclusivity — Private Law Remedies
Cases which raise only issues of private law and where remedies sought are private law remedies such as damages are clearly outside the scope of judicial review. A private company or individual cannot enforce a purely contractual right by way of judicial review.
Civil Procedure — Concurrent Proceedings — Same Parties and Subject Matter
Where an applicant has already set in motion the enforcement of private law rights by ordinary suit procedure before one division of the court, the court will decline to hear a parallel application for judicial review raising the same issues to avoid the risk of the courts coming to varying conclusions on the same subject matter which would embarrass the judicial process.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Rubis Energy Kenya PLC v SAS Africa General Trading Limited & 2 ors [2021] eKLR
  • O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
  • Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association v Kampala Capital City Authority & Executive Director (KCCA) (Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2011)
  • R v East Berkshire Health Authority, ex p Walsh [1985] QB 152
  • R v British Broadcasting Corporation ex p Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Touch Media Limited T_A Touch FM Limited v Uganda Communications Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 44 (11 March 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.