The Right to fair and just treatment in administrative decisions (Article 42)

Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 provides that any person appearing
before any administrative official or body has a right to be treated justly and fairly and shall have a
right to apply to a court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against him/her.

Administrative decisions are those initial decisions that are made by public bodies, government
entities, and statutory bodies. When arriving at administrative decisions, the principles of natural
justice which entail a right to fair hearing and rule against bias have to be applied. The principles of
natural justice were first discussed in Ridge V Baldwin and others (1963) ALL ER 66.

The person appearing before an administrative body should be accorded a fair hearing. This entails
informing the defendant about the case against him/her before trial, allowing one ample time to
prepare his or her defence. Additionally, the defendant should be allowed to have legal
representation if they can afford.

The trial should also be expeditious. It should not be too long to delay justice and neither should it
be too short to deny someone a fair hearing. The procedure should be seen to be efficient, lawful,
reasonable and procedurally fair.

In regards to the rule against bias; reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that everyone on the
decision making panel is impartial. If there is any reason for one to believe that they will not be
impartial, they can excuse themselves from the panel. A decision should then be taken on the merits
of the case and no other factors.

It is also important to ensure that the decision making body is not acting ultravires. It should have
the mandate and power to make the decision taken.

These factors contribute to having a just and fair treatment in administrative decisions.

An individual who is aggrieved by a decision made by an administrative body has a right to apply to
court for Judicial Review under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71. The court grants orders
of certiorari which is quashing the decision of the administrative body, mandamus which is an order
compelling the Respondent to do something and order of prohibition which is stopping the
Respondent from acting on something. These orders were discussed in Oyaro John Owinyi V
Kitgum Municipal Council MC No.007 of 2018
Ridge v Baldwin & others (1963) All ER 66
The Brighton police authority dismissed its Chief Constable (Charles Ridge) without offering him an
opportunity to defend his actions. The Chief Constable appealed, arguing that the Brighton Watch
Committee (headed by George Baldwin) had acted unlawfully (ultra vires) in terminating his
appointment in 1958 following criminal proceedings against him.[1]

Ridge also sought financial reparation from the police authority; having declined to seek
reappointment, he sought a reinstatement of his pension, to which he would have been entitled
with effect from 1960 had he not been dismissed, plus damages, or salary backdated to his dismissal.

The House of Lords held that Baldwin's committee had violated the doctrine of natural justice,
overturning the principle outlined by the Donoughmore Committee thirty years before that the
doctrine of natural justice could not be applied to administrative decisions.

"Natural justice" is a legal doctrine which requires an absence of bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and
the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). Ridge was the first time that the doctrine had been
used to overturn a non-judicial (or quasi-judicial) decision.[2]