[2005] UGHC 102

[2005] UGHC 102

The court found that the District Council's suspension of Rule 108 and adoption of an alternative procedure under the Local Governments Act was within the law. The process was still ongoing, and no final determination had been made against the applicants. There was no evidence of excess or lack of jurisdiction,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGHC 102
Parties
Applicant: Kagoma Skyluck; Applicant: Evas Beitwenda; Applicant: Flavia Kanagizi; Applicant: Emmanuel Rutakyengyerwa; Applicant: Kanyesigye Didas; Respondent: Kabale District Local Government
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-05-CV-MA-0031-2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review (certiorari)
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Local Government Procedure, Natural Justice
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Certiorari Local Government Procedure Natural Justice

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kagoma Skyluck

Applicant

Evas Beitwenda

Applicant

Flavia Kanagizi

Applicant

Emmanuel Rutakyengyerwa

Applicant

Kanyesigye Didas

Applicant

Kabale District Local Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review (certiorari)

  1. 1 Whether the suspension of Rule 108 of the Kabale District Council Rules of Procedure was lawful and justified.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were denied the right to a fair hearing and due process in the censure proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the decision to suspend Rule 108 was ultra vires, biased, or in breach of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the District Council's suspension of Rule 108 and adoption of an alternative procedure under the Local Governments Act was within the law. The process was still ongoing, and no final determination had been made against the applicants. There was no evidence of excess or lack of jurisdiction, error of law, or breach of natural justice at this stage. The court held that certiorari is only available to quash a completed decision or determination, which was not present here. Therefore, the application was premature and without merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a writ of certiorari is dismissed with costs.