[2025] UGHC 420

### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KITGUM**

#### **MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 014/2023**

# **(JUDICIAL REVIEW)**

#### **OKOT MARTINE OBWOLO APPLICANT**

**Versus**

#### **PADER DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONDENT**

### **BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE PHILIP W. MWAKA.**

#### **RULING.**

## **Introduction and Background.**

[1]. The Applicant, a Parish Chief in the employment of Pader District Local Government (Respondent) seeks Judicial Review of decisions of the Respondent arising from a recruitment exercise by the Pader District Service Commission between December, 2018 and April, 2019 culminating in the appointment of various Officers to numerous advertised positions. The Applicant himself who had sought to be appointed to the position of Finance Officer Scale U4U was unsuccessful and the candidate appointed to the position was a Mr. Ongwech Patrick. It is the Applicant's case on the one hand that the successful candidate Mr. Ongwech Patrick did not have the requisite qualifications for the position of Finance Officer and on the other hand that the entire recruitment exercise was marred with irregularities in respect of all the positions advertised - including significantly the absence from the recruitment process of the appointed and designated Secretary of the District Service Commission, Mr. Odongkara Hillary. It is on this basis that he seeks nullification of the entire recruitment exercise.

#### **Pleadings, Procedural Status and the Application to Cross-Examine.**

- [2]. The Application was filed on the 26th September, 2023. The Respondent filed its Affidavits in Reply on the 12th February, 2024. The Applicant filed his Affidavit in Rejoinder on the 6th September, 2024. The filings consumed the better part of a year noting that the matters complained of were from year 2018 - 2019, thus putting in issue the urgency of the matter. The matter first came up before the Court for hearing on the 30th November, 2023 and numerous other times including 13th February, 2024, 22nd February, 2024, 7th March, 2024, 7th May, 2024 and 30th May, 2024 during which it was apparent that timelines given for filing pleadings were not observed. At the proceedings of the 10th September, 2024 the Court again reviewed compliance and the respective pleadings were on Record. - [3]. At the last appearance before the Court, Counsel for the Applicant orally sought - *Leave of the Court to cross-examine* - all three (3) deponents for the Respondent including - Mr. Kinyera Lakwide David, former Chairperson of the Pader District Service Commission, Mr. Okot George P'Adonga, retired and Mr. Okumu Christopher, former Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Pader District on the contents of their Affidavits as regards the propriety and procedures of the recruitment exercise by Pader District Service Commission (DSC). - [4]. In response, the Respondent opposed the Application for cross-examination of the deponents as to the contents of their Affidavits and submitted that the Application was in its nature omnibus and in any case since it was preceded by a request to extend time in the event that the request is not granted then the orders sought would be moot. Moreover, the Respondent submitted, the matters expected to be raised in any cross-examination were already covered in the Affidavit in Rejoinder. The Respondent further highlighted that Mr. Odongkara Hillary at the centre of the Applicant's averments of procedural impropriety in as far as having been excluded from the recruitment exercise was now Deceased.

[5]. In rejoinder, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that as regards extension of time the Applicant was in the process of exhausting Administrative remedies to complaints he had raised which included an enquiry by the Inspectorate of Government (IGG) and enquiry by the Public Service Commission (PSC) which were still underway and he had not received a response from the Respondent.

### **Considerations and Determination of the Court.**

[6]. The Court observes that the Application was filed under **Article 42 of the Constitution, Sections 37, 40 and 41 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 16 (Revised), Sections 96 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 (Revised), Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 and Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules No. 11/2009.** The Orders sought by the Applicant are wide-ranging and besides seeking extension of time and validation of the belated filing of the instant Application include - Certiorari, quashing the entire recruitment exercise and the selection of the successful candidates including Finance Officer U4U by the Pader District Service Commission; Prohibition, stopping further implementation of the decisions reached and appointments made in the recruitment exercise of the successful candidates including Finance Officer U4U by the Pader District Service Commission; Declarations, annulling and nullifying the entire recruitment exercise and selection of the successful candidates including Finance Officer U4U by the Pader District Service Commission; a Directory Order, that a fresh recruitment exercise be conducted for the positions cited including Finance Officer U4U supposedly in accordance with the Law and relevant Procedures and ensuring transparency in the recruitment exercise; an Order, that the Respondent accords the Applicant and other aggrieved persons a fair hearing; and lastly, an Order for grant of Costs of the Application.

- [7]. As regards the Applicant's prayer at this stage of the proceedings seeking *leave of the Court to the cross-examine* all of the Respondents three (3) witnesses who deponed the respective Affidavits in Reply - Mr. Kinyera David Lakwide on paragraphs 10, 15, 16 and 17 of his Affidavit, Mr. Okot George P'Adonga on paragraphs 5 and 7 of his Affidavit and Mr. Okumu Christopher on paragraph 9 of his Affidavit and perceived irregularities in the recruitment exercise, the Court is conscious that the grant or denial of its leave is entirely at its discretion in the circumstances of the case and the exercise of such discretion must be Judicious. **See: Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 19 Rules 1-3 of the Civil Procedure Rules**. - [8]. Thus, a review of the paragraphs cited indicates that the averments the Applicant seeks to cross-examine all the three (3) deponents of the Affidavits in Reply on are all in respect of the role of the Secretary of the Pader District Service Commission and the contentions regarding the alleged exclusion of the Late Mr. Odongkara Hillary from the process and the participation of Mr. Okot George P'Adonga in the exercise said to have been assigned duties with the Pader District Service Commission. A significant motivating factor for the prayer for leave to cross-examine seems to be the demise of the Late Odongkara Hillary said to have been the duly assigned Secretary of the Pader District Service Commission whose evidence could not be had. The Court observes that the assignments of duty and designations are referenced in numerous correspondence on the Record of the Court including Letter of the 15th March, 2019 and 7th May, 2014 as well as others which give a background to the tenure in employment of the Late Odongkara Hillary. Suffice it to say that the Court is satisfied that the material on the Record of the Court is sufficient for the Court to address contentions regarding the participation and role of the designated Secretary to the Pader District Service Commission during the recruitment exercise contested by the Applicant.

[9]. In addition, whereas District Service Commissions are established and provided for by **Articles 198 and 200 of the Constitution**, the role of the Secretary of a District Service Commission within its Secretariat is a Statutory role provided for by the **Local Governments Act, Cap. 138** and is not ascribed to any individual. As such, the Court is able to sufficiently make any determination in view of any impugned actions specified in evidence provided vis-à-vis the Statutory mandate of the Office holder. The Court also considers the cross-examination sought of all the Respondent's deponents of its Affidavits not sufficiently focused admittedly encompassing not only the specified paragraphs cited but traversing the entire recruitment exercise even as regards positions in which nobody has sought Judicial Review and is more likely than not to degenerate into a fishing expedition for extraneous material and yet the Applicant had ample opportunity to controvert any averments by the deponents in the many months he had the opportunity to and was allowed to file his Affidavit in Rejoinder - which in any case is the mode of evidence in Judicial Review. This was accommodated by the Court and without objection raised by the Respondent. In conclusion on the matter, the Court reiterates that the principal grounds of the Application are already stipulated in the Motion specified as in regards to averments on the qualifications of the successful candidate for the position of Finance Officer U4U and averments regarding the absence of Mr. Odongkara Hillary said to be the Secretary of the District Service Commission as well as other averments of the exercise being marred by irregularities. The Court considers it unwarranted to at this stage more than a year later to begin fact finding afresh yet the Applicant had adequate opportunity to pursue fact finding including other modes involving discovery and further and better particulars during the interregnum between filing the Application in September, 2023 and his request for leave to crossexamine in September, 2024, even exceeding the time given for disposal.

- [10]. It is for these reasons in answering the issue of *Whether the Applicant has provided sufficient grounds for grant of leave to cross-examine all three (3) of the Respondent's witnesses who deponed Affidavits in Reply* - that the Court in the Judicious exercise of its discretion declines to grant the Applicant leave to cross-examine the deponents of the Respondent's Affidavits in Reply. It is incumbent on the Court to regulate its own procedures in the interests of Justice and prevent abuses of its processes. - [11]. Having carefully given due consideration to the Applicants Oral Application for leave to cross-examine all three (3) deponents of the Respondent's Affidavits in Reply, the Respondents response thereto and the Applicant's Rejoinder; the Court hereby declines to grant the Applicant leave to cross-examine the deponents for the reasons given herein-above. Costs shall abide the outcome of the Main Cause.

# **Orders of the Court.**

- [12]. Accordingly, the Court makes the following Orders: - 1. The Oral Application by the Applicant to cross-examine all three (3) deponents of the Respondents Affidavits in Reply in **Miscellaneous Application No. 014/2023** is hereby denied. - 2. Costs shall abide the outcome of the Main Cause. - 3. **Misc. Application No. 014/2023**, subject of these protracted procedures, is fixed for the **17th June, 2025** for hearing to its conclusion.

It is so Ordered.

**Signed and Dated on the 4 th day of June, 2025 at High Court, Kitgum Circuit.**

**Philip W. Mwaka**

**Acting Judge of the High Court.**

# **Delivery and Attendance.**

This signed and dated Ruling on the directions of the Presiding Judge shall be delivered to the Parties electronically on **Wednesday, the 4 th day of June, 2025** by the Deputy Registrar, High Court, Kitgum Circuit. Certified copies shall be retained on the Court file to be availed to the Parties.

| 1. | Deputy Registrar, | | |----|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------| | | High Court,<br>Kitgum Circuit | -<br>Her Worship Suzanne Aisia Musooli. | | 2. | Counsel for the Applicant | -<br>Mr. LoboAkera Stephen. | | 3. | The Applicant | -<br>Mr. Okot Martine Obwolo. | | 4. | Counsel for the Respondent | -<br>Ms. Doris Twesigomwe, State Attorney. | | 5. | The Respondent | -<br>Pader District Local Government. | | 6. | Respondent's Representative | -<br>Ms. Anek Joyce Ongee, | | | | Principal Assistant<br>Secretary. | | | | |

- 7. Court Clerk and Interpreter Mr. Odongo Jimmy. - 8. Interested and Affected Persons and Entities.


**Philip W. Mwaka**

**Acting Judge of the High Court.**

**High Court, Kitgum Circuit.**

**4 th day of June, 2025.**