[2009] UGHC 183

[2009] UGHC 183

The court found that although Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 prescribes a three-month limitation period for applications for judicial review, it also provides discretion for the court to extend this period for good reason. The applicants were awarded damages by the Human Rights Commission...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 183
Parties
Applicant: Nampogo Robert; Applicant: Tumwesigye Moses; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CV-MC-0120 OF 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection overruled; application to proceed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Limitation Period, Mandamus Enforcement, Human Rights Award Execution
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Limitation Period Mandamus Enforcement Human Rights Award Execution

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nampogo Robert

Applicant

Tumwesigye Moses

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review is barred by limitation under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion to extend the period for filing the application for mandamus.
  3. 3 Whether the continuous non-payment of awarded damages constitutes good reason for extension.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 prescribes a three-month limitation period for applications for judicial review, it also provides discretion for the court to extend this period for good reason. The applicants were awarded damages by the Human Rights Commission Tribunal in 2004, but payment has not been effected despite their continuous efforts to enforce the award. The court held that the applicants' pursuit of other enforcement avenues before seeking mandamus constitutes good reason for extension. Furthermore, Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Act sets a 12-year limitation for execution of decrees, which was not exceeded. The court...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection overruled; application to proceed

Orders

  • Objection on limitation is overruled.
  • Costs awarded to the applicants.