Wakilii

Turyahikayo v Bishop of Kabale Diocese and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2012)

High Court · [2014] UGHC 117 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari, prohibition, declaration and damages following suspension from clerical duties by the Bishop of Kabale Diocese
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; applicant remains dismissed from clerical state by order of the Holy See

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

Court held that ecclesiastical disciplinary decisions by a Bishop are justiciable where breach of natural justice is alleged. However, where the Supreme Pontiff has already dismissed the applicant from clerical state, orders of prohibition and certiorari quashing the Bishop's suspension would be in vain and not efficacious. The court declined to grant prohibition, certiorari, or declaration. Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; applicant remains dismissed from clerical state by order of the Holy See

Facts

The applicant, Father Boniface Turyahikayo, was a Roman Catholic cleric. On 11 September 2012, the respondent Bishop wrote to the applicant alleging serious misconduct against the canons of the Roman Catholic Church and requiring a defence within 3 days. The applicant requested 21 days but was granted only until 25 September 2012. On that date, the applicant instead petitioned the respondent to step down as his judge, citing ten incidents showing bias. On 28 September 2012, the respondent suspended the applicant from carrying out the power of orders and governance. The respondent conducted investigations using two assessors and reported to the Holy See. On 8 January 2013, the Supreme Pontiff Pope Benedict XVI dismissed the applicant from his liturgical duties. The applicant sought judicial review of the Bishop's suspension on grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and breach of natural justice.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies being sought
  2. Whether the applicant has a cause of action
  3. Whether the application is frivolous and vexatious
  4. Whether the application should have been commenced by judicial review

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Jurisdiction — Ecclesiastical Matters — Justiciability
Provided a matter is justiciable and constitutes a cause of action, the court can exercise its judicial review jurisdiction over decisions by ecclesiastical authorities, especially where there is a breach of the rules of natural justice or where there is an issue concerning the proprietary or contractual rights of individuals.
Administrative Law — Article 42 Constitution — Administrative Body — Ecclesiastical Authority
A Bishop acting in disciplinary proceedings against a cleric can be considered an administrative official within the meaning of Article 42 of the Constitution, such that decisions taken are subject to judicial review where breach of natural justice is alleged.
Judicial Review — Prohibition — Effect — Future Acts Only
An order of prohibition looks to the future to stop a decision not yet made. Where a decision has already been made, whether in excess or lack of jurisdiction or in violation of the rules of natural justice, an order of prohibition would not be efficacious against the decision already made; prohibition cannot quash a decision already made but can only prevent the making of a contemplated decision.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Effect — Restoration of Status Quo Ante
The effect of certiorari is to restore the status quo ante — the situation that existed before the decision quashed was made. Certiorari will issue and an order to quash made in case of excess or lack of jurisdiction, error of law on the face of the record, non-observance of the rules of natural justice, or in case of fraud, collusion or perjury.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Futility — Supervening Events
Where a higher ecclesiastical authority has made a final determination dismissing an applicant from clerical state, orders of prohibition and certiorari quashing an earlier suspension by a lower ecclesiastical authority would be in vain and not efficacious, as the applicant would still be unable to carry out ecclesiastical duties by reason of the higher authority's order.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (12)

  • Namuddu Hanifa v Returning Officer of Kampala and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 69 of 2006)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2
  • Twinomuhangi Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Two Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 152 of 2006)
  • In the matter of an Application for an Order of Certiorari by Bukeni Gyabi Fred (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 63 of 1999)
  • Re An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
  • Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990] AC 876
  • HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL. Docket No. 10-553
  • R v Bishop Silas Yego and the Registrar of Societies ex parte David Mulei Mbuvi and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 155 of 2006)
  • Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge (Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996)
  • Owor Arthur and Another v Gulu University (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007)
  • In Re Mustafa Ramathan [1996] KALR 86
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 78 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyahikayo v Bishop of Kabale Diocese and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2012) [2014] UGHC 117 (25 June 2014)
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.