Wakilii

Tweyambe & Another v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 395 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 35 · 2020 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of an administrative decision to suspend applicants and commence investigation
Decision
Application for judicial review granted; impugned decision quashed; applicants restored to office

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 held that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies acted illegally, irrationally, and in breach of natural justice when suspending the applicants and commencing an investigation without consulting the Board of Uganda Cooperative Alliance as required by Section 52 of the Cooperatives Societies Act 1992. The decision was quashed as the Registrar failed to comply with mandatory consultation requirements, suspended officers not implicated in any report, and violated the applicants' constitutional rights to fair hearing under Articles 28, 42, and 44.

Outcome

Application for judicial review granted; impugned decision quashed; applicants restored to office

Facts

The 1st applicant was Chairperson of the Board of Uganda Cooperative Alliance (UCA), elected September 2018. The 2nd applicant was General Secretary of UCA, appointed January 2017. On 24 October 2019, following a meeting with the Minister of State for Cooperatives, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a letter suspending both applicants from office and directing them to hand over to deputies to allegedly pave way for investigations. No resolution to suspend or investigate had been taken at the meeting. A Board committee had previously investigated staff complaints against the 2nd applicant and cleared him of wrongdoing, recommending only further investigation into an alleged forged resolution. The Board had resolved on 18 October 2019 to conduct this further investigation itself. The 1st applicant had not been mentioned in any complaint or committee report.

Issues

  1. Whether this application is amenable for judicial review
  2. Whether the impugned decision by the 2nd Respondent constituted illegality
  3. Whether the decision of the 2nd Respondent was irrational
  4. Whether the 2nd Respondent's decision was procedurally improper and violated the principles of natural justice
  5. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Declaration issued that the decision by the 2nd Respondent dated 24th October 2019 to conduct an investigation on the Applicants and the Uganda Cooperative Alliance is illegal, ultravires, biased, highhanded and irrational.
  • Declaration issued that the decision by the 2nd Respondent dated 24th October 2019 directing the Applicants to take leave from office was ultravires, arrived at illegally, highhandedly, irrationally, in bad faith, unreasonably and in breach of the rules of natural justice.
  • Order of Certiorari issued quashing the decision of the 2nd Respondent dated 24th October 2019 to conduct an investigation and directing the Applicants to step aside and handover office.
  • Order of Prohibition issued prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from conducting the said investigation and/or suspending the Applicants from office.
  • Permanent injunction issued restraining the 2nd Respondent, his servants or agents from implementing the decision dated 24th October 2019 to conduct an investigation and to dismiss and/or suspend the Applicants from office.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality
A decision-making authority commits illegality when it acts without jurisdiction, ultravires, or contrary to the provisions of law or its principles in the process of taking a decision.
Administrative Law — Cooperatives — Registrar's Powers — Statutory Duty to Consult
Where Section 52 of the Cooperatives Societies Act 1992 requires the Registrar to consult the Board before conducting an inquiry and suspending officers, this consultation requirement is mandatory and runs through all relevant subsections. The Registrar's powers must be exercised in strict conformity with the law and after due consultation with the Board.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Consultation — Content of Duty
For consultation to be fair under common law duty to act fairly, the public body must ensure that consultation occurs when the proposal is still at a formative stage, give sufficient reasons to permit intelligent consideration and response, allow adequate time for response, and conscientiously take the product of consultation into account in finalising the proposal.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Irrationality — Definition and Standard
Irrationality in administrative decisions exists when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken that no reasonable authority addressing its mind to the facts and law before it would have made such a decision. Such a decision is usually in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards.
Human Rights — Fair Hearing — Administrative Bodies — Constitutional Protection
The right to a fair hearing before an administrative body is guaranteed by Articles 28, 42 and 44 of the Constitution and is a non-derogable right. The principle of natural justice requires that no person shall be condemned unless given prior notice of allegations and a fair opportunity to be heard. There is a presumption in statutory interpretation that rules of natural justice will apply.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Bias — Test for Real Likelihood
Bias means a real likelihood of an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious. In considering the possibility of bias, it is not the mind of the decision-maker which is examined but the impression given to reasonable persons.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Effect of Breach — Nullity
A decision reached by an administrative body in disregard of the principles of fair hearing or natural justice is null and void. Where there is violation of mandatory statutory consultation requirements, breach of natural justice, and irrationality, the administrative decision is rendered null and void and amenable to judicial review remedies including certiorari, prohibition, and injunction.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (22)

  • Clear Channel Independent Uganda v PPDA (Miscellaneous Application No. 380 of 2008)
  • Wanyama George Stephen v Busia District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2011)
  • His Worship Aggrey Bwire v Attorney General & Another (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2009)
  • Thugitho v Nebbi Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2017)
  • Ojangole Patricia & 4 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 303 of 2013)
  • Rebecca Nassuna v Dr. Diana Atwine & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 322 of 2018)
  • Oyaro v Kitgum Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 07 of 2008)
  • R (United Company Rusal PLC) v The London Metal Exchange [2014] EWCA Civ 1271
  • Dott Services Ltd & Another v AG (Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2016)
  • Council of Civil Service Union v Minister of Civil Service [1985] 1 AC 374
  • Marvin Baryaruha v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 149 of 2016)
  • Basajjabalaba Hides and Skins Ltd v Bank of Uganda & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 738 of 2011)
  • Samwiri Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Twinomuhangi Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government & 2 Others [2006] HCB 130
  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
  • Thugitho Festo vs. Nebbi Municipal Council (supra)
  • Onyango Oloo v Attorney General [1986-1989] EA 456
  • Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade & Development & Another v Adam Vissiliadis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1985)
  • R v Justice of Queens Court (1908) 2 IR 282
  • Tumaini v Republic (1972) EA 441
  • Kasibo Joshua v The Commissioner of Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2007)
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 3 Others (Civil Application No. 353 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tweyambe & Another v Attorney General & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 395 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 35 (14 February 2020)
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.