Twesigye v Rubaare Town Council and Another (Miscellaneous Application 323 of 2023)
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.
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 the Chief Administrative Officer has lawful authority under the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders 2021 to transfer public officers within the same local government. The transfer of the applicant alongside other public servants in a reshuffle did not constitute victimization under section 9(6)(a) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2010 where the person taking the action has the right in law to do so. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success or irreparable injury that could not be compensated in damages.
Outcome
Application dismissed
Facts
The applicant was employed as a Senior Assistant Accountant at Rubaare Town Council, Ntungamo District. After six months in post, he discovered that a bank account had not been handed over to him and money was being withdrawn without his knowledge. He claimed to be a whistleblower of corrupt tendencies involving the Chief Administrative Officer of the second respondent which were under investigation. On 10 July 2023, the applicant was transferred from Rubaare Town Council to Ihunga sub-county effective 15 July 2023 in his substantive position. The applicant filed a main civil suit challenging the transfer as illegal, unreasonable and malicious. He then filed this miscellaneous application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from evicting him from his office at Rubaare Town Council pending disposal of the main suit. The transfer was part of a general reshuffle affecting several officers at the same rank.
Issues
- Whether the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated for in damages.
- Whether the balance of convenience favored the grant of a temporary injunction.
- Whether the transfer of the applicant constituted victimization under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2010.
Orders
- The application for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
- No order as to costs is made.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41
- Local Government Act s.64
- Local Government Act s.64(2)(c)
- Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2010 s.9
- Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2010 s.9(6)(a)
- Public Service Commission Regulations 2009 Reg.11
- Public Service Commission Regulations 2009 Reg.12
- Public Service Commission Regulations 2009 Reg.13
- Uganda Public Service Standing Orders 2021 Section A Part (A-M) Item 3
- Uganda Public Service Standing Orders 2021 Section F Part (F-C) Item 2
- Local Government Act s.2
- Local Government Act s.6
Cases cited (1)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 43
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.