Wakilii

Wakiso Transporters Tour & Travel Ltd & Ors v Inspector General of Government & Ors (Misc. Cause No. 53 of 2010)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 73 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, declarations, permanent injunction and damages in relation to a report by the Inspector General of Government
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; applicants not entitled to prerogative orders or damages

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: The IGG report contained recommendations and not decisions amenable to judicial review by way of certiorari. Certiorari cannot issue against mere findings, recommendations, suggestions or observations, but only against actual decisions. The District Service Commission cannot dismiss an employee solely on recommendations from the IGG without conducting its own disciplinary proceedings. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; applicants not entitled to prerogative orders or damages

Facts

The Inspector General of Government received a complaint on 20 August 2009 alleging abuse of office, conflict of interest and corruption in the award of tenders by officials at Wakiso District Administration. After investigations, on 9 March 2010 the IGG issued a report making recommendations including that the 5th applicant be submitted to the District Service Commission for dismissal for incompetence. The applicants, comprising three companies holding tenders with Wakiso District and three individuals, sought judicial review arguing they were not given a hearing, the report was made in contempt of court, and the recommendations were tainted by illegality and procedural impropriety. The applicants sought orders of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, permanent injunctions and damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st respondent in investigating and issuing the impugned report offered the applicants a hearing.
  2. Whether the IGG in investigating and issuing the said report acted illegally, irrationally and impartially.
  3. Whether or not the 1st respondent made any decisions against the applicants.
  4. Whether the applicants have a cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Certiorari — Distinguishing Decisions from Recommendations
Certiorari issues to quash decisions made by a statutory body, public officer or inferior tribunal, but cannot issue against mere findings, recommendations, suggestions or observations.
Inspector General of Government — Nature of Reports and Recommendations
A District Service Commission cannot dismiss an employee solely on the recommendations of the Inspector General of Government; if the Commission has reason to dismiss or discipline an employee, it must conduct its own disciplinary proceedings where the employee is afforded an opportunity to present their case, and the action must be based on the Commission's own findings and not the IGG's recommendations.
Mandamus — Requirements for Grant of Relief
Before mandamus can be granted, the applicant must show a clear legal right to have the thing sought done in a manner and by a person sought to be coerced. The duty whose performance is sought to be coerced must be purely statutory in nature, plainly incumbent upon the person or body by operation of law or by virtue of that person or body's office, and concerning which they possess no discretionary powers. There must be a demand and refusal to perform the act which is sought to be coerced.
Proper Parties — Joinder of Officials in Personal Capacity
In judicial review proceedings where recommendations of the Inspector General of Government are implementable by an office such as the Chief Administrative Officer, it is unnecessary to join individual office holders in their personal capacities. Orders of mandamus or certiorari are enforceable against the office in its official capacity and trickle down to officials responsible for implementation, regardless of whether specific individuals are named as parties.

Legislation cited (33)

Cases cited (17)

  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) 1 AC
  • Kuteesa and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011)
  • In the Matter of Bukeni Gyabi (Misc. Cause No. 63 of 1999)
  • Kamurasi Charles v Accord Properties Ltd (SCCA No. 3 of 1996)
  • Matovu and Others v Sseviri and Another (1979) HCB 174
  • Ridge v Baldwin (1963) 2 All ER 66
  • Bahikire Muntu and Others v Kyambogo University (HCMA No. 643 of 2005)
  • Lex Uganda Advocates & Solicitors V Attorney general MA No. 322 of 208
  • Peter Apell & 5 others V the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
  • Katamba Fred v Mukono District Local Government and Another (MA No. 091 of 2009)
  • Onyait David v Busia District Local Government and Another (MA No. 34 of 2006)
  • Semwo Construction Company v Rukungiri District Local Government (Misc. Cause No. 30 of 2011)
  • Kirwa Wolfarm Mines Ltd v Commissioner Geological Survey and Mines (Misc. Cause No. 145 of 2011)
  • Dott Services Ltd v Attorney General and Auditor General (Misc. Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Luwero Town Council v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 150 of 2013)
  • Beachside Forest Authority v Buyinza Mukadise and Onyango (Misc. Cause No. 123 of 2012)
  • Shah v Attorney General (No. 3) (1970) EA

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wakiso Transporters Tour & Travel Ltd & Ors v Inspector General of Government & Ors (Misc. Cause No. 53 of 2010) [2013] UGHCCD 73 (25 May 2013)
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.