Wakilii

Wanzige Magoola v Makerere University Business School & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 242 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 125 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of suspension decisions made by university principal
Decision
Suspension decisions quashed; applicant entitled to refund of withheld salary

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 was amenable to judicial review. The Principal's decisions to suspend the applicant from both positions of Dean of Faculty and Senior Lecturer were made ultra vires his statutory powers under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001. Only the Appointments Board could remove a Dean or Senior Lecturer upon recommendation by two-thirds majority of faculty members. The suspension decisions were illegal, null and void ab initio. An order of certiorari issued quashing the suspension decisions and the applicant was entitled to refund of half salary withheld since suspension.

Outcome

Suspension decisions quashed; applicant entitled to refund of withheld salary

Facts

The applicant, a Senior Lecturer and Dean of Faculty at Makerere University Business School (MUBS), was suspended from both positions by the Principal (2nd respondent) in August 2019. The first suspension, as Dean of Faculty, was on grounds of conflict of interest. The second, as Senior Lecturer, was on grounds of gross misconduct relating to alleged personal attacks on the Principal and inciting staff disobedience. Both suspensions arose from letters the applicant had written in his capacity as Acting Chairperson of the MUBS Staff Association to the Minister of Education and Permanent Secretary Ministry of Public Service, raising concerns about staff underpayment and threatening industrial action. The suspensions recommended the applicant to the Appointments Board for further action. No investigations were conducted. The applicant was subsequently dismissed by the Appointments Board on 13 November 2019 after a disciplinary hearing that took place after this judicial review application had been filed. The applicant appealed the dismissal to the Staff Appeals Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether this application is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether the Respondent's decision to suspend the Applicant was lawful.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • A prerogative order of certiorari doth issue quashing the impugned decisions of the 2nd Respondent to suspend the Applicant as Dean of Faculty and Senior Lecturer.
  • The Applicant is entitled to a refund of half of his salary from 06/08/2019.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Applicant.
  • General damages claim refused.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Subsequent Events — Effect of Supervening Procedural Measures on Jurisdiction
In judicial review proceedings, the fact that an impugned decision was subsequently superseded by other procedural measures does not cure any prior defects or illegalities in the decision-making process that were already before court, nor does it render the application incompetent.
Administrative Law — Ultra Vires Acts — Statutory Powers — Universities — Disciplinary Authority
Under the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001, a university principal does not have implicit disciplinary powers to suspend a Dean of Faculty or Senior Lecturer. Only the Appointments Board may remove such officers from office, whether temporarily or permanently, upon the prescribed recommendation of a two-thirds majority of faculty members or upon complaint. A suspension decision made by a principal in the absence of such statutory authority is ultra vires, illegal, null and void ab initio.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality — Decisions Made Ultra Vires Statutory Powers
A decision made ultra vires the prescribed powers provided in the law amounts to an illegality and renders that decision null and void ab initio. Such a decision can be quashed under judicial review.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Damages — Availability in Judicial Review Proceedings
Damages are ordinarily sought through civil actions as a matter of private law. Damages can only rarely feature as a form of collateral challenge in proceedings for judicial review. If the main purpose of litigation is to seek damages, a party ought to pursue a claim in civil action and not through judicial review, especially where there are complex factual issues to be resolved such as the assessment of damages. The award of general damages in judicial review is an exception rather than the general rule.
Evidence — Affidavits — Defective Affidavits — Affidavits in Reply — Requirements
Under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, affidavits must be confined to facts the deponent can prove of his own knowledge, except on interlocutory applications where statements of belief may be admitted provided the grounds thereof are stated. An affidavit in reply is fatally defective and liable to be struck out where the deponent does not state he was privy to the impugned decisions, does not disclose the source of his information, and does not have the requisite authority to swear the same on behalf of the decision-maker.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (12)

  • Adam Mustafa Mubiru and Irene Walubiri v Law Development Centre (HCMA No. 279 of 2013)
  • Commissioner of Lands v Kunste Hotel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1995)
  • Shah Vershi Dershi and Co. Ltd v Transport Licensing Board [1970] EA 631
  • William Tumwine v Kampala City Council and Another (HCMC No. 56 of 2009)
  • Musuku Abdul Jabar v Bugiri Municipal Council and Another (HCMC No. 207 of 2017)
  • Clear Channel Independent (U) Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (HCMC No. 380 of 2008)
  • Kuluo Joseph and Others v Attorney General and Others (HCMC No. 106 of 2010)
  • Gen. David Sejusa v Attorney General (HCMC No. 176 of 2014)
  • His Worship Aggrey Bwire v Attorney General and the Judicial Service Commission (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2009)
  • Amiran Enterprises Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMC No. 6 of 2010)
  • Sundus Exchange & Money Transfer Limited and 7 Others v Attorney General (HCMC No. 161 of 2019)
  • Oketha Dafala Valentine v The Attorney General of Uganda (HCCS No. 0069 of 2004)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wanzige Magoola v Makerere University Business School & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 242 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 125 (29 May 2020)
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.