Wakilii

Wanjala v Kyambogo University (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 068 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 53 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari and mandamus following re-advertisement of university post after applicant allegedly qualified in interviews
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed with no order as to costs

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 application for judicial review failed because the applicant relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding his alleged success in interviews and did not prove any existent legal right. Judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The respondent's decision to re-advertise was legally proper and not ultra vires. Mandamus cannot issue without proof of a clear legal right, and an employer cannot be forced to engage an employee it does not wish to employ. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant applied for the post of University Secretary at Kyambogo University following an advertisement on 13 July 2015. He was shortlisted, attended interviews, and was among two candidates who qualified for the final interview. The applicant claimed he was informally told he emerged winner and that his name was forwarded to the University Council for formal appointment. However, he was shocked to see the post re-advertised in the New Vision on 25 January 2016. He sought judicial review by way of certiorari to quash the decision to re-advertise and mandamus to compel his appointment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established grounds for judicial review on the basis of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
  2. Whether certiorari should issue to quash the respondent's decision to re-advertise the position of University Secretary.
  3. Whether mandamus should issue to compel the appointment of the applicant.
  4. Whether the applicant demonstrated a clear legal right to the appointment sought.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
For an application for judicial review to succeed, the applicant must show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Conditions for Issue
For an order of certiorari to issue, the decision complained of must have been ultra vires, arbitrary, oppressive, or outright illegal. Prerogative orders of mandamus, certiorari, or prohibition are discretionary and exercised judicially according to well-settled principles.
Administrative Law — Evidence — Inadmissibility of Hearsay
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible for determining any matter before court pursuant to section 59 of the Evidence Act. An applicant cannot rely on hearsay or presumption to establish an existent legal right.
Judicial Review — Scope — Decision-Making Process v. Decision Itself
Judicial review is concerned only with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. The court cannot act as an appellate venue against an administrative decision.
Administrative Law — Appointments — Exhaustion of Internal Remedies
Under section 50(3) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, the decisions of the Appointments Board are subject to the University Council. All complaints regarding appointment should be referred to the University Council first.
Judicial Review — Mandamus — Requirement of Clear Legal Right
Mandamus cannot legally issue unless an applicant shows a clear legal right to have the thing sought to be done. An employer cannot be forced to take an employee that it does not wish to engage.
Employment & Labour — Expectation of Appointment — No Legal Right Before Final Decision
An applicant has no legal right to be appointed or to expect to be appointed before a final decision has been reached and communicated. The principle that an employer cannot be forced to engage an employee it does not wish to employ applies.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyre (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wanjala v Kyambogo University (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 068 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 53 (9 February 2017)
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.