Turyahikayo v Attorney General (Misc. Application No.139 of 2015)

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 Single Justice declined to grant an interim order restraining the State from implementing recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry pending the applicant's appeal. While a substantive application and Notice of Appeal existed, the applicant failed to show a serious threat of execution, the threat being merely speculative. The court further held it would not interfere with or stifle the constitutional mandate of the IGG (Article 225) and DPP (Article 120(3)(a)) to investigate, especially where no irreparable damage was shown. The application was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Outcome

Application for interim order dismissed; costs to abide the substantive application

Facts

In 2004 the applicant was appointed Assistant Public Sector Coordinator for the Project Monitoring Unit of the Global Fund under the Ministry of Health. Following allegations of mismanagement of funds and fraudulent accountabilities, a Commission of Inquiry was established by Legal Notice No. 15 of 2005. The Commission recommended further examination by the IGG, prosecution by the DPP and CID for interfering with evidence and perjury, and forfeiture of the applicant's gratuity. The applicant obtained leave and filed a judicial review application challenging the recommendations, which halted their implementation. The DPP began investigations but withdrew on learning of the pending application. The judicial review application was dismissed by Kibuuka J. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 30 April 2015 and a substantive application for stay, then sought this interim order, fearing imminent commencement of investigations once the court order was no longer in place.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay.
2. Whether there was a serious threat of execution or implementation of the Commission's recommendations before the hearing of the substantive application.
3. Whether the court should interfere with the constitutional mandate of the IGG and the DPP to conduct investigations.

Orders

• The application for an interim order to restrain the respondent from implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry is dismissed.
• Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-1 rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-1 rule 42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-1 rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-1 rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-1 rule 76
• Judicature Act s.36(5)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 225
• Constitution of Uganda Article 120(3)(a)

Cases cited (4)

• Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tojdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
• Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
• DEVON V BHADES [1972] E.A 22

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.

• Nile Breweries Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2781 of 2025)

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