[2014] UGHCCD 84

[2014] UGHCCD 84

The court held that the applicants failed to establish grounds for the grant of prerogative orders of certiorari or prohibition. The actions of the police and the DPP—arrest, detention, search, seizure of property, and prosecution—were within their statutory and constitutional mandates and did not amount to administrative actions amenable to judicial review. The court emphasized that errors of fact or sufficiency of evidence are not reviewable by certiorari, and that the applicants had alternative remedies through ordinary civil suits. The legal status of the first applicant was not sufficiently proved, and there was no evidence of violation of natural justice or the right to be heard....

Citation
[2014] UGHCCD 84
Parties
Applicant: Uganda Voluntary Mobilizers Organisation Ltd; Applicant: Hajji Yusufu Kasajja; Applicant: Hajati Hawa Nakito; Applicant: Saiti Nabakiimbi; Applicant: Ddamaba Haruna; Applicant: Abdul Matovu; Applicant: Phoebe Arinaitwe; Applicant: Steven Kuteesa; Applicant: Silver Tusingwire; Applicant: Patrick Lumbasi; Applicant: Timothy Timuzigu; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
23 June 2014
Case Number
Misc.Cause No. 059 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Musota, J
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Prerogative Orders, Powers of Police, Powers of Dpp, Illegal Detention, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Prerogative Orders Powers of Police Powers of Dpp Illegal Detention Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Voluntary Mobilizers Organisation Ltd

Applicant

Hajji Yusufu Kasajja

Applicant

Hajati Hawa Nakito

Applicant

Saiti Nabakiimbi

Applicant

Ddamaba Haruna

Applicant

Abdul Matovu

Applicant

Phoebe Arinaitwe

Applicant

Steven Kuteesa

Applicant

Silver Tusingwire

Applicant

Patrick Lumbasi

Applicant

Timothy Timuzigu

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established facts to justify the grant of prerogative orders stated in the application.
  2. 2 What remedies are available to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to establish grounds for the grant of prerogative orders of certiorari or prohibition. The actions of the police and the DPP—arrest, detention, search, seizure of property, and prosecution—were within their statutory and constitutional mandates and did not amount to administrative actions amenable to judicial review. The court emphasized that errors of fact or sufficiency of evidence are not reviewable by certiorari, and that the applicants had alternative remedies through ordinary civil suits. The legal status of the first applicant was not sufficiently proved, and there was no evidence of violation of natural justice or the right to be heard....

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.