Wakilii

Uganda Law Society v Kampala Capital City Authority & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 243 OF 2017)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 82 · 2020 Application Granted — Judicial Review Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking extension of time, certiorari to quash items in delegated legislation, and prohibition to restrain enforcement
Decision
Application granted; impugned provisions of the Instrument quashed and enforcement prohibited

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 6 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 granted an extension of time to file the judicial review application and held that the Minister's decision to include legal firms in the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017 was ultra vires the Trade (Licensing) Act and the Advocates Act. The court found that requiring law firms already licensed under the Advocates Act to obtain additional trade licences constituted double taxation and was illegal, irrational, and inconsistent with existing licensing regimes for the legal profession. Orders of certiorari and prohibition were issued to quash the impugned provisions and restrain their enforcement.

Outcome

Application granted; impugned provisions of the Instrument quashed and enforcement prohibited

Facts

The Uganda Law Society applied for judicial review challenging the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017, which included legal firms in the categories of businesses required to obtain trade licences from municipal councils. The applicant argued that law firms were already licensed annually under the Advocates Act through practicing certificates and certificates of approval of chambers, and requiring an additional trade licence would constitute double taxation. The applicant received a letter from KCCA on 12 May 2017 requiring law firms to apply for trade licences and filed the application on 28 July 2017. The 1st respondent objected on grounds that the application was filed out of time and that judicial review was inappropriate for the matter.

Issues

  1. Whether the time within which to file the application for judicial review should be extended.
  2. Whether the decision by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives to include Item 17 (Part A) and Item 25 (Part C) in the schedule to the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017 passed on the 13th January 2017 was ultra vires.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Time extended for filing the judicial review application.
  • An order of certiorari issued quashing items 17 (in Part A) and item 25 (in Part C) of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017.
  • An order of prohibition issued restraining and preventing items 17 and 25 from taking effect and prohibiting the respondents or their agents from enforcing the said provisions against law firms and advocates.
  • Application allowed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Discretionary Power — Good Reason Standard
The court has discretion to extend the period within which to bring an application for judicial review where there is good reason, particularly in matters of public importance affecting numerous individuals beyond the immediate applicant.
Delegated Legislation — Ultra Vires Doctrine — Limits of Ministerial Power
A delegate must exercise jurisdiction within the four corners of its delegation. Conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto or affects other existing legislation.
Delegated Legislation — Repeal of Statutory Exemptions — Construction of Legislative Intent
The repeal of a statutory provision exempting already-licensed professions from trade licensing requirements does not give the Minister carte blanche to impose additional licensing requirements on professions regulated under separate statutory regimes. The Minister must exercise discretion with circumspection to avoid absurdity and double taxation.
Double Taxation — Multiple Licensing Fees — Central and Local Government Revenue
The issuance of two licences for the same professional practice, one by the central government and another by local government, constitutes double taxation that is unfair to the licensee and not a rational manner of improving revenue collection.
Delegated Legislation — Irrationality and Unreasonableness — Test for Validity
Subsidiary legislation may be struck down as unreasonable and ultra vires if it is partial or unequal in operation between different classes, manifestly unjust, discloses bad faith, or involves oppressive or gratuitous interference with rights that could find no justification in the minds of reasonable persons.
Trade Licensing Act — Meaning of Trade — Professional Services Exclusion
Legal services provided by law firms do not constitute trade or trading within the meaning of the Trade (Licensing) Act, as advocates do not offer goods for sale and are prohibited from trading within their chambers by professional regulations.
Remedies — Certiorari and Prohibition — Discretionary Relief
Where delegated legislation is found to be ultra vires through illegality and irrationality, the court may issue orders of certiorari to quash the unlawful provisions and prohibition to restrain their enforcement, thereby depriving the ultra vires act of all legal effect retrospectively.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (16)

  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew & 2 Others v Attorney General and 6 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Kyogonza Fred v Abdallah Kiganda & Masindi District Local Government (High Court Civil Revision No. 005 of 2016)
  • Nampogo Robert & Another v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 0120 of 2008)
  • Medina Hospital Limited & 6 Ors v Country Government of Garissa; Misc. Cause No. of 2015
  • NC Bank Uganda Ltd & 24 Others v KCCA and Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2018)
  • Paulo Saku Busagwa & Others v Commissioner Land Registration & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2014)
  • Customs & Excise Commissioners v Cure & Deeley [1961] 3 All ER 641
  • Stanbic Bank of Uganda Ltd & Others v Attorney General (High Court Constitutional Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0645 of 2011)
  • Mixnam Properties Ltd v Chertsey U.D.C [1964] 1 QB 214
  • R v Aston University Senate ex parte Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Cocks v Thanet District Council [1983] 2 AC 286
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • Eaton Towers Uganda Ltd v Attorney General & Jinja Municipal Council (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 84 of 2019)
  • Laxmi Khandsari v State of Uttar Pradesh [1981] AIR SC 873
  • Uganda National Dairy Traders Association v The Dairy Development Authority & Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 113 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Law Society v Kampala Capital City Authority & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 243 OF 2017) [2020] UGHCCD 82 (8 May 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.