Tusiime Doreen v Kampala Capital City Authority [2026] UGSC 35

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's judicial review application was not time-barred. Where a public authority repeatedly defers deployment with assurances rather than issuing a definitive refusal, the cause of action accrues only upon the final administrative decision; here the operative decision was the letter of 6 October 2016, and the application filed fourteen days later was within the three-month limit. The respondent's conduct also raised waiver and equitable estoppel against the limitation defence. However, emoluments accrue only upon commencement of service, so an appointee who never assumed duty cannot recover salary arrears or NSSF contributions. The Court set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and awarded UGX 100,000,000 general damages for the unlawful administrative action.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; Court of Appeal's decision set aside; appellant awarded UGX 100,000,000 general damages with interest; claims for salary arrears and NSSF contributions dismissed

Facts

In 2012 the Public Service Commission advertised positions at the Kampala Capital City Authority. The appellant applied for Officer Prosecution and succeeded; by letter dated 1 October 2012 she was appointed and directed to report to the respondent's Executive Director for deployment. On reporting she was told verbally that deployment was halted for lack of funds and to await the next financial year. Similar deferrals followed in 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, each citing unavailability of funds. By letter dated 6 October 2016 the respondent formally notified her that deployment was halted sine die due to persistent financial constraints; she was never deployed. She filed judicial review in the High Court on 18 October 2016, seeking to quash the decision, mandamus to compel deployment, and compensation. The High Court granted certiorari, mandamus and damages. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal, holding the application time-barred, and dismissed her cross-appeal. She was eventually deployed on 1 April 2019 after contempt proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to evaluate the evidence on continuous torts.
2. Whether the appellant's application for judicial review was time-barred under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to consider the appellant's cross-appeal, and whether an appointee who never commenced duty is entitled to salary arrears, NSSF contributions or general, aggravated and exemplary damages.

Orders

• Relief is granted in the form of declaratory and supervisory orders against the respondent, affirming that the applicant's appointment was valid and that the respondent's failure to act was unlawful.
• The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the judicial review claim was time-barred; the Court of Appeal's decision is set aside.
• The applicant is not entitled to emoluments since she had not commenced duty and therefore did not earn them.
• The appellant is awarded UGX 100,000,000 (Uganda Shillings One Hundred Million Only) as general damages with interest at 6% Court Rate.
• Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.5(1)
• Public Service Commission Regulations reg.29(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
• Supreme Court Rules r.70(1)(a)
• Limitation Act

Cases cited (16)

• Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (1982) HCB
• Gen. David Sejusa v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 176 of 2015)
• Attorney General v Gen. David Sejusa (Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2015)
• Sumbu Jean Louis v Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2019)
• Rugundu v International Law Institute [2006] UGSC 18
• Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire [2008] UGSC 21
• Decro Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 361
• Lubowa & 4 Ors v Makerere University [2013] UGSC 8
• Eridad Otabong v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
• National Insurance Corporation v Span International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2002)
• Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 871
• Tito Buhingiro v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2014)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Kisembo & Another v The Cooperative Bank in Liquidation (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2018)
• Galleria in Africa Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited [2018] UGSC 102
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)

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