Judicial Review in Uganda

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary at page 852, judicial review is defined as a court’s power to
review the actions of other branches or levels of government; especially the court’s power to invalidate
legislative and executive actions as being unconstitutional. Secondly, a court’s review of a lower court’s
or administrative body’s factual or legal findings.

In Uganda, judicial review finds its basis in the Constitution, the Judicature Act Cap 13 and the Judicature
(Judicial Review) Rules 11/2009.

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

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

In Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40, it was held that a decision reached in violation of the principles of
natural justice especially one relating to the right to be heard is void and unlawful.

The Judicature Act Cap 13.

Section 36 (1) provides that the High Court may upon an application for judicial review, make an order,
as the case may be, of;

(a) mandamus, requiring any act to be done;

(b) prohibition, prohibiting any proceedings or matter; or

(c) certiorari, quashing any decision of the lower tribunal.

Section 36(2) also provides that no order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari

shall be made in any case in which the High Court is empowered by the exercise of the powers of review
or revision contained in this or any other enactment to make an order of like effect as the order applied
for where the order applied for would be rendered unnecessary.

The different orders that are made pursuant to judicial review under section 36 0f the Judicature Act
Cap 13.
All the remedies granted for judicial review are discretionary and are defined as hereunder;

1. Mandamus is defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary on page 973 as a writ issued by a superior court
to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties
correctly.

2. Prohibition on the other hand is defined at page 1228 of the dictionary, as a law or order that forbids
a certain action.

3. Certiorari at page 220 of the dictionary, is defined as an extraordinary writ issued by an appellate
court at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review.

When judicial review can be granted as a remedy.

In Owor Arthur & others v Gulu University, HCMA 18/ 2007, Justice Kasule stated that, “the essence of
judicial review jurisdiction is for the court to ensure that the machinery of justice is observed and
controlled in its exercise by those inferior bodies in society that happen to be vested with the legal
authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects. Such bodies or individuals have a duty
to act judicially…… The overriding purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual concerned
receives fair treatment, if that lawful authority is not abused by unfair treatment. It is not for the court
to take over the authority and the person entrusted to that authority, by substituting its own decision on
the merits of what has to be decided…..”

Further, in Kasibo Joshua v Commissioner of Customs U.R.A. HCMA 44/2007, Justice Kiryabwire held that
the prerogative orders made in pursuance of judicial review look to the control of the exercise of an
abuse of power by those in public offices, rather than the final determination of private rights which is
done in a normal civil suit. He held further that judicial review is not concerned with the decision, but
the decision-making process, an assessment of the manner in which the decision is made and it is not an
appeal and the jurisdiction is exercised in a supervisory manner; not to vindicate rights as such, but to
ensure that public powers are exercised in accordance with the basic principles of leagality, fairness and
rationality.

Finally, in the case of His Worship Aggrey Bwire v Attorney General CACA No. 9/ 2009, it was held that
judicial review can only be granted on three grounds;-

(i) Illegality
(ii) Irrationality

(iii) Procedural impropriety.

It was further held that the first two grounds are known as substantive grounds of judicial review
because they relate to the substance of the disputed decision. Procedural impropriety is a procedural
ground because it aims at the decision making procedure rather than the content of the decision itself
and none of the afore-mentioned grounds were applicable to the proceedings or decision of the
committee.

Procedure

Rule 3(1) of the Judicature (Judicature Review) Rules No.11/ 2009, an application for any of the
prerogative orders shall be made by way of application, which is by notice of motion which must be
served on the other party personally according to rule 6 of the same rules.