Wakilii

Wall v Uganda Law Society & Another (Review Cause 49 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 28 · 2025 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging exclusion from Uganda Law Society nomination list for representative to Judicial Service Commission
Decision
Application allowed; applicant's exclusion from nomination list quashed; respondents prohibited from defamatory publications

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 granted judicial review, holding that the Uganda Law Society Elections Committee's decision to exclude the applicant from the nomination list after initially nominating her violated principles of natural justice and fair hearing. The Court found the Committee acted illegally by scheduling elections with inadequate notice (14 days instead of the required 21), by excluding the applicant without a proper hearing, and by revoking her nomination when it was functus officio having already completed the nomination process.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant's exclusion from nomination list quashed; respondents prohibited from defamatory publications

Facts

On 26 November 2024, Uganda Law Society issued notice of elections for representatives to the Judicial Service Commission to be held on 17 December 2024. The applicant, a former president of Uganda Law Society, submitted nomination documents on 3 December 2024. The Elections Committee verified her documents and issued her a signed nomination certificate, entering her name on the list of nominated candidates. Later that evening, the Committee called the applicant claiming there was a complaint against her nomination, but the alleged complainant denied making any complaint. The Committee nevertheless communicated that the applicant lacked the required 15 years standing as an advocate. By 8:00pm on 3 December, the Committee circulated a final nomination list excluding the applicant's name. The President of Uganda Law Society posted the list on his personal social media platform with defamatory statements directed at the applicant. The applicant wrote to the respondents on 4 December 2024 but received no satisfactory response. The respondents contended the applicant had only 14.6 years standing and that her nomination certificate was issued in error and was interim in nature.

Issues

  1. Whether the application merits grounds for judicial review
  2. Whether the applicant's right to a fair hearing was violated
  3. Whether the Elections Committee became functus officio after nominating the applicant
  4. Whether the respondent erred in applying a constitutional provision meant for appointment to the nomination process
  5. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • An Order of Certiorari issued quashing the decision of the respondents to exclude the applicant from the list of duly nominated candidates for the elective position of the respondent's Representatives to the Judicial Service Commission.
  • An Order of Prohibition forbidding the officials of the 1st respondent from publishing and circulating defamatory, derogatory and misleading statements against the applicant and interfering with the election process.
  • Declaration that the respondents were functus officio after nominating the applicant and did not have legal basis to omit the applicant's name from the final nomination list.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Decision-Making Process
Judicial review is concerned not with the decision itself but with the decision-making process through which the decision was made. It is the exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction to check and control the exercise of power by those in public offices or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions.
Natural Justice — Fair Hearing — Principles of Fairness
Fairness is required whenever the exercise of power adversely affects an individual's rights or interests. The issue of whether fairness is required and what is involved to achieve fairness is a matter of law for the courts to determine, not for the discretion of the decision-maker. The court is the arbiter of what is fair.
Statutory Interpretation — Mandatory Requirements — 'Shall' as Imperative
Whenever statutory words require things to be done as a condition of making a decision, especially when the form of words requires something 'shall' be done, this raises an inference that the requirement is mandatory or imperative. Failure to do the required act renders the decision unlawful.
Functus Officio — Revocation of Administrative Decisions — Finality
The functus officio doctrine provides that an official who has once discharged his official function by making a decision is unable to change his mind and revoke, withdraw or revisit the decision. The doctrine promotes certainty, fairness and legality by insulating individuals from the sudden change of mind on the part of decision-makers. A decision-maker cannot be entitled to revoke a decision in the absence of statutory authority to do so, and even then must provide a proper hearing.
Election Administration — Nomination Process — Time Requirements
Where election regulations prescribe that determination of candidates shall occur at least twenty-one days before the date of elections, scheduling the nomination process fourteen days before the election date is illegal and contrary to the regulations, rendering the entire electoral process unlawful.
Unreasonableness — Irrational Decisions — Lack of Evidence
A decision is irrational and perverse when it is a finding of fact on a material matter which is not supported by any evidence. Decisions made or based on clearly erroneous inferences of fact are errors of law and fact which make a decision unlawful.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Limited v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2016)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission Ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 23
  • R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers Ex p Guinness [1990] QB 146
  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Doody [1994] AC 531
  • Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014
  • Miftari v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 481

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wall v Uganda Law Society & Another (Review Cause 49 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 28 (14 February 2025)
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.