Uganda Case Law

Mukweli and 4 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another

Mukweli and 4 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 210 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCD 34 (24 January 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 210 of 2019

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the Bank of Uganda, as regulator, acted within its statutory mandate under Section 82(1) of the Financial Institutions Act when it directed the suspension of the applicants from Post Bank Uganda Limited. The applicants were under investigation by competent state agencies for serious offences involving dishonesty and financial loss, which justified the regulator's intervention to protect the institution and depositors. The court held that the right to a fair hearing is not absolute and may be limited in circumstances where urgent regulatory action is necessary and where th…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Natural Justice
• Suspension Of Employees
• Regulatory Powers
• Fit And Proper Test

Centre for Constitutional Governance(CGG) V National Bureau for Non Governmental Organisations

Centre for Constitutional Governance(CGG) V National Bureau for Non Governmental Organisations (Miscellaneous Cause No. 374 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 62 (30 July 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 374 of 2020

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court held that the NGO Bureau acted within its mandate in suspending NEW-U and dismissed the judicial review application with no order as to costs.

• Judicial Review
• Ultra Vires Actions
• Natural Justice
• Freedom Of Association
• Regulatory Powers
• Ngo Registration

Uganda Journalists Association & 2 Others v Uganda Communications Commisson

Uganda Journalists Association & 2 Others v Uganda Communications Commisson (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO. 279 & 287 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 252 (23 May 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO. 279 & 287 OF 2019

Judge

Mugambe, J

The court found that the Applicants had standing to bring the application for judicial review as their constitutional rights were directly affected by the Respondent's directive. The relevant status quo to be preserved was the state of affairs before the Respondent's directive of 30th April 2019. The court was unable to conclusively determine at this stage whether the Applicants had a prima facie case with high chances of success or would suffer irreparable loss, and thus decided the application on the balance of convenience. The court held that the Respondent's directive had the far-reaching…

Source excerpt

• Media Freedom
• Freedom Of Expression
• Judicial Review
• Regulatory Powers
• Right To Information
• Temporary Injunctions