Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Kampala Capital City Authority & Another (Miscellaneous Application 137 of 2011)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the matter was not a proper case for judicial review. The underlying dispute concerned the validity of a contract between the applicant and KCCA, specifically whether the contract had been extended to 2014. The Court held that judicial review jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and not designed to vindicate contractual rights. The proper remedy lay in an ordinary civil suit where the validity and terms of the contract could be fully tried and determined.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant directed to pursue contractual remedy through ordinary civil suit if desired

Facts

The applicant, Uganda Taxi Operators and Drivers Association, had managed taxi operations in Kampala under a contract initially signed with Kampala City Council in 1993. The applicant claimed that in 2011, the Contracts Committee extended the contract to run until 31 October 2014. KCCA, through its Executive Director (the 2nd respondent), issued a memorandum dated 18 October 2011 stating that the applicant's contract would expire on 31 October 2011 and that management of the taxi parks would revert to KCCA. On 20 October 2011, the Acting Executive Director sent a letter confirming that the extended contract subsisted until 31 October 2011 and inviting the applicant to a meeting on 25 October 2011. The applicant filed this judicial review application on 21 October 2011, seeking to quash the decision, prohibit interference with its contract, and claim damages. The dispute centered on whether the contract had been validly extended to 2014 or expired in 2011.

Issues

1. Whether the case before the Court was a proper case for judicial review
2. Whether the decisions of the second respondent are in accordance with the law
3. Whether the decisions by the second respondent are in breach of the constitution and rules of natural justice
4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the damages sought
5. What other remedies arise out of the application

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 26
• Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 42
• Judicature Act s.36
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 3(1)(a)
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 3(2)
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 6
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 Rule 8

Cases cited (1)

• John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 78 of 2005)

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.

• Touch Media Limited T/A Touch FM Limited v Uganda Communications Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2021)

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