Wakilii

Unicargo Forwarders and Agents Ltd v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 858 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 209 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of consent order arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2016
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of locus standi

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

Held that the applicant lacked locus standi to seek review of the consent order because the import license upon which it relied was a statutory instrument that had not been gazetted as required by law and therefore was not valid or judicially recognisable, meaning the applicant had no legal authority to import the restricted goods and consequently no legal or equitable rights affected by the consent order.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of locus standi

Facts

The applicant, Unicargo Forwarders and Agents Limited, filed an application seeking review of a consent order made in Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2016. The applicant claimed it had locus standi because it held an import license to import Tiger Head Batteries granted under the External Trade Act (Import License) (Tiger Head Brand Batteries) Order, 2016 dated 20 May 2016, and that the consent order affected its business interests as an importer of those batteries. The respondents opposed the application, contending the applicant had no locus standi. The court examined whether the import license relied upon by the applicant was valid.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring this application
  2. Whether the applicant has established any grounds to review and set aside the consent judgment/order in Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2016

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay costs of the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Instruments — Definition and Characteristics
A statutory instrument is a form of subsidiary legislation which allows the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or gives effect to some provisions of the parent Act, and includes any document by which a power conferred by an Act on the President, a Minister, or other authority to make proclamations, rules, regulations, byelaws, statutory orders or statutory instruments is exercised.
Statutory Instruments — Publication and Judicial Notice
A statutory instrument must be published in the gazette to be judicially noticed by the court, and where a statutory instrument is not published in the gazette as required by the Interpretation Act section 16, it cannot be judicially noticed and is not recognised by law.
Statutory Instruments — Commencement Date and Validity
Where a statutory instrument does not provide for a commencement date, it commences on the date of its publication as notified in the gazette, and a statutory instrument that is neither gazetted nor bears an instrument number is not valid and not recognised by law.
Locus Standi — Application for Review — Legal or Equitable Rights
An applicant has locus standi to seek review of a court order under the Civil Procedure Act section 82 only where the applicant has a legal or equitable interest or right in the subject matter affected by the order, and where an applicant's purported licence or authority to engage in regulated activity is invalid and not recognised by law, the applicant has no legal or equitable rights affected by the order and therefore lacks locus standi.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Daniel and 16 Others v Uganda Land Commission and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1237 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Unicargo Forwarders and Agents Ltd v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 858 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 209 (7 December 2016)
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.