[2012] UGHC 132

[2012] UGHC 132

The application for judicial review was filed outside the prescribed three-month period following the decision of the LC. III court, which was pronounced on 29th October 1997. The applicants did not seek an extension of time as required under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009. As a result, the application is not properly before the court and must be struck out for being filed out of time without leave of court. The court declined to address the substantive merits of the arguments due to this procedural defect.

Citation
[2012] UGHC 132
Parties
Applicant: Odia Martin; Applicant: Egaru Elias; Respondent: Osege Stephen
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
9 July 2012
Case Number
Hct-09-cv- Cr. No. 0003/2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_struck_out
Judges
Musota, J
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Limitation Periods
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Certiorari Mandamus Limitation Periods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Odia Martin

Applicant

Egaru Elias

Applicant

Osege Stephen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review was filed within the prescribed time limit under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to orders of certiorari and mandamus regarding the decision of the LC. III court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' rights to natural justice and fairness were violated by the proceedings in the LC. III court.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for judicial review was filed outside the prescribed three-month period following the decision of the LC. III court, which was pronounced on 29th October 1997. The applicants did not seek an extension of time as required under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009. As a result, the application is not properly before the court and must be struck out for being filed out of time without leave of court. The court declined to address the substantive merits of the arguments due to this procedural defect.

Court Disposition

application_struck_out

Orders

  • The application is struck out with costs.