Wakilii

Wanzusi Robert Fulton Matukhu & Another V Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 144 · 2019 Application Granted — Mandamus Issued AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application seeking orders of certiorari, mandamus, and declarations following refusal to swear in elected councillors
Decision
Applicants granted mandamus order compelling swearing-in within 30 days, with full emoluments from July 2018 and damages of UGX 10,000,000 each

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 held that the Lord Mayor's refusal to include the swearing-in of duly elected workers' representatives on the Authority meeting order paper constituted illegal conduct and abuse of statutory authority under the Kampala Capital City Authority Act. The court found this omission violated the elected councillors' constitutional rights and granted an order of mandamus compelling the respondent to swear in the applicants within 30 days, together with full emoluments from the date they should have been sworn in and damages.

Outcome

Applicants granted mandamus order compelling swearing-in within 30 days, with full emoluments from July 2018 and damages of UGX 10,000,000 each

Facts

The applicants were elected in June 2018 as male and female councillors representing workers at Kampala Capital City Authority under the Local Governments Act and their election results were gazetted on 17 July 2018. The Electoral Commission notified the Clerk to Council and the Executive Director of KCCA. Despite the Executive Director's repeated requests to the Lord Mayor (who chairs the Authority and controls the order paper) to include the administration of oath on the order paper for Authority meetings, the Lord Mayor refused to do so without providing any reasons. The applicants made several oral and written demands to be sworn in from July 2018 onwards, but by the time of the application in February 2019, they had still not been sworn in. The respondent KCCA maintained there was no decision refusing to swear them in, but acknowledged all efforts to have them sworn in had been fruitless due to the Lord Mayor's refusal to include the item on the order paper.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's decision and action can be challenged by way of judicial review
  2. Whether the respondent acted legally, rationally and properly in refusing to swear the applicants in as male and female councillors representing workers at Kampala Capital City Authority
  3. What remedies are available to the applicants

Orders

  • An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondent to swear in the applicants as councillors representing workers in Kampala Electoral Area.
  • The respondent is ordered to ensure that the applicants are sworn in within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Any further delay in swearing in the applicants shall attract a punitive fine of UGX 150,000 per day to each applicant until each is sworn in.
  • The fine must be paid by the public official/servant who fails to execute their statutory duty.
  • The applicants are entitled to their full emoluments: salaries, allowances and other monetary benefits that all councillors received during the period they were supposed to have been sworn in.
  • Each applicant is awarded UGX 10,000,000 as damages.
  • The applicants are awarded costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Scope and Purpose — Supervisory Jurisdiction over Decision-Making Process
Judicial review is not concerned with the decision in issue but with the decision-making process through which the decision was made. It exercises the court's supervisory jurisdiction to check and control the exercise of power by those in public offices or persons or bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions by the granting of prerogative orders. The purpose is to ensure that the individual is given fair treatment by the authority to which he or she has been subjected.
Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
For an applicant to succeed under judicial review, it is trite law that he must prove that the decision made was tainted either by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Administrative Law — Failure to Act — Mandamus to Compel Performance of Statutory Duty
Judicial review may be used to compel the performance of public duties by public authorities or decision-makers. Where an Act imposes a duty to perform an act, failure to act is automatically unlawful and can be remedied by judicial review, by grant of an order of mandamus.
Administrative Law — Exercise of Discretionary Power — Presumption Against Abuse
Parliament or an authority granting power cannot be supposed to have intended that powers granted by it be open to any kind of abuse. It is to be presumed that the body upon which power is bestowed will act judiciously in effecting the intent and scheme of the enabling law. The courts have the warrant to impose legal bounds on even the most extensive discretion or power, as Parliament must have assumed that the designated authority would act properly and responsibly, with a view to doing what was best in the public interest and most consistent with the policy of the statute.
Administrative Law — Statutory Discretion — Exercise According to Law and Reason
Where it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, 'discretion' means that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion. It is to be not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. Discretion must be exercised within the limits to which an honest person competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself.
Administrative Law — Ultra Vires Acts — Refusal to Perform Statutory Duty Without Legal Basis
The refusal to perform a statutory duty without any legal basis or justification is an improper exercise of power for improper motives or bad faith, is not provided for under the law, and is indeed ultra vires and an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. Such refusal or failure by public officials is illegal, unlawful, and contrary to the enabling statute.
Judicial Review — Order of Mandamus — Requirements for Grant
An applicant for an order of mandamus is required to establish: (a) a clear legal right and corresponding duty on the respondent; (b) that some specific act or thing which the law requires that particular officer to do has been omitted to be done by him; (c) lack of an alternative remedy; or (d) whether an alternative exists but is inconvenient, less beneficial, or totally ineffective.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (10)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • R v Commission for Racial Equality ex p Hillingdon LBC [1982] QB 276
  • Sharp v Wakefield [1891] AC 173
  • R vs Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R vs Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Philadelphia Trade & Industry Limited vs Kampala Capital City Authority
  • Hon Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire & Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 783 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wanzusi Robert Fulton Matukhu & Another V Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 144 (14 June 2019)
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.