Wakilii

Tumuhimbise Hellen Hannah v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1032 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 9 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandatory injunction arising from judicial review proceedings
Decision
Application for mandatory injunction dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing of judicial review application

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 dismissed an application for a mandatory injunction seeking to restore an employee to her position pending judicial review of her investigative suspension. The court held that granting the mandatory injunction would effectively decide the main judicial review application without trial, that the applicant had not exhausted internal remedies as required by the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, and that no special circumstances existed to warrant the grant of such a powerful remedy at the interlocutory stage.

Outcome

Application for mandatory injunction dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing of judicial review application

Facts

The applicant was employed by the respondent as Principal Procurement Officer in May 2024 and promoted to Manager Procurement in March 2025. In October 2025, a whistleblower alleged to the Minister that the applicant had falsified academic documents at her previous employment with Uganda Development Corporation, leading to her dismissal for gross misconduct. Following a board meeting on 18 November 2025, the respondent placed the applicant on investigative suspension. The applicant obtained an interim order on 21 November 2025 stopping investigations but not lifting the suspension. She then applied for a mandatory injunction to restore her to her position pending determination of her judicial review application challenging the suspension.

Issues

  1. Whether the application warrants and satisfies the conditions for grant of a mandatory injunction?
  2. Whether the Applicant can be restored to the status quo prevailing before she was placed under the investigative suspension on 18th November 2025?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant to file written submissions on Miscellaneous Cause No. 0334 of 2025 within 15 days from date of ruling.
  • Respondent to file reply within 15 days after Applicant's submission.
  • Applicant to file rejoinder within 5 days.
  • Ruling on main suit to be delivered within 15 days from date of rejoinder.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the main suit for Judicial Review.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandatory Injunctions — Requirements for Grant at Interlocutory Stage
A mandatory temporary injunction is a rare remedy granted only in special circumstances where the court must be satisfied that the applicant is likely to be successful at trial, that the grant will not amount to a final disposition of the main application, and that special circumstances justify its grant.
Mandatory Injunctions — Status Quo to be Preserved
The status quo which will be preserved by a temporary injunction is the last actual, pre-dispute, peaceable, non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy. A mandatory injunction will not be granted where it would alter rather than preserve the status quo existing at the time the application was filed.
Mandatory Injunctions — Effect of Deciding Main Suit
A temporary mandatory injunction will not be granted where its grant would have the effect of deciding the main application without a trial. Where the reliefs sought in the interlocutory application are the same as those sought in the main suit, granting the injunction would render the main suit nugatory.
Exhaustion of Remedies — Requirement under Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules
Under Rule 7A(1)(b) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 (As Amended), a court must satisfy itself that the aggrieved person has exhausted the existing remedies available within the public body or under the law before entertaining an application for judicial review. Filing judicial review proceedings without first exhausting internal remedies is premature.
Investigative Suspension — Not Final Determination
An investigative suspension pending inquiry into allegations of misconduct is not a final decision regarding an employee's employment. Where an employer's human resource manual provides for reinstatement and payment of withheld benefits if an employee is exonerated after investigation, the employee would not suffer irreparable damage that cannot be atoned for by damages if an injunction is not granted.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (24)

  • Jover Byarugaba v Ali Muhoozi & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2014)
  • Phiona Nakku v NIRA & Anor [2025] UGHCCD 154
  • Nasser Kiingi v Kampala Capital City Authority and the Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 29 of 2011)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Geraldine Ssali Busuulwa v NSSF & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • Tonny Wasswa v Joseph Kakooza [1987] HCB 79
  • NTCO Ltd v Hope Nyakairu [1992-1993] HCB 135
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
  • Victoria Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 601 of 2010)
  • Amec Group Limited v Universal Steels (Scotland) Limited [2009] EWHC 560
  • Locabail International Finance Limited v Agro-export and Others [1986] 1 ALL ER 901
  • E.L.T Kiyimba-Kaggwa v Hajji Katende Abdu Nasser (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984)
  • Francis Babumba and 2 Others v Erusa Bunju (Civil Suit No. 679 of 1990)
  • Rashida Abdul Hanali and Another v Suleiman Adrisi (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0011 of 2017)
  • Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc [1993] FSR 468
  • Brain Bridge High School Limited v Montclair Schools Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 094 of 2022)
  • Garuga Musinguzi and Another v New Vision Printing and Publishing Company Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 817 of 2016)
  • Atabua Letia Shamil v Cavendish University Uganda (CUU) and Okopa Michael (Miscellaneous Cause No. 272 of 2022)
  • Farida Nantale v AG and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 630 of 2013)
  • Sudhir Ruparelia v Crane Bank Uganda Limited (in Receivership) and Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2020)
  • Rashida Abdul Hanali and Another v Suleiman Adrisi (Court of Appeal No. 0011 of 2017)
  • Muzaale v National Environment Management Authority [2024] UGHCCD 81

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumuhimbise Hellen Hannah v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1032 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 9 (5 January 2026)
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.