Uganda Case Law

Obol and Others v Gulu University and Another

Obol and Others v Gulu University and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 16 of 2021) [2023] UGHC 40 (17 March 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 16 of 2021

Judge

Okello, J

The court held that the three-month limitation period for filing judicial review applications under section 36(7) of the Judicature Act and Rule 5(1) of the Judicial Review Rules is mandatory and not merely directory. The applicants' challenge to the promotion and appointment of the second respondent was filed several years after the relevant decisions, far outside the statutory period. The court found that statutes of limitation are matters of substantive law, not technicalities, and must be strictly complied with. The applicants did not formally apply for extension of time or plead exceptio…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Limitation Period
• Time Bar
• Extension Of Time
• University Appointments

Nabawanuka & 7 Others v Makerere University & 2 Others

Nabawanuka & 7 Others v Makerere University & 2 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 52 (14 April 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2019

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court dismissed a contempt application by Makerere University employees, finding the 90-day compliance period ran from service of the order and the board had acted within time.

• Contempt Of Court
• Compliance With Court Orders
• Promotion Of Employees
• University Appointments
• Contempt-of-court
• Compliance-with-court-orders

Wanjala v Kyambogo University

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

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 068 OF 2016

Judge

Musota, J

The applicant failed to establish a clear legal right to appointment as University Secretary, as his claim was based on hearsay and not supported by admissible evidence. Judicial review does not concern itself with the merits of the administrative decision but with the legality of the process. The respondent's decision to re-advertise the post was within its legal mandate and not shown to be arbitrary, illegal, or ultravires. Mandamus cannot issue in the absence of a clear legal right, and certiorari is not warranted where the decision is legally proper. The applicant did not demonstrate any…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Certiorari
• Mandamus
• University Appointments
• Procedural Impropriety