FACULTY OF LAW

ADMINISTIVE PROCESSES READING LIST/GUIDE

Year 2 Semester 1 LLB

Course Unit ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES

Title
Course Code BLAW 2101 Online Code: Credit hours:
AP
5
Contact 6 Core / Core
Hours Elective
Lecturer(s)  Edgar Kabahizi Nabankema Harriet
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] +256774665313
Whatsapp: +256774754428

Tutor 

Consultation Online
Day Period(hrs) Time
hours Mode
Thursda BBB
2 16h30 -18h30
y
Friday 2 13h00 – 14h00 BBB
Class Times Attendance is compulsory. Cancellations of lecture(s) will be
communicated in class and on the Moodle notice board website.
(Pending)
Day Period Time Online Mode
Monday 2hrs 4-6pm BBB
BBB
Friday 2hrs 6-8pm BBB
BBB
BBB
Tutorial Attendance is compulsory. Cancellations of lecture(s) will be
communicated in class and on the Moodle notice board website.
Times
Day Period Time Online Mode
Tuesday 1hr 4-5pm BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB

A: WELCOME NOTE

1
Dear Student, the Uganda Christian University, Law Faculty team welcomes you to 2020-
2021 Advent Semester online studies and in this singular case, the study of Administrative
Processes. The mode of instruction will be strictly online and under the guidance of a
lecturer. It is our intention to avail you a tutor and bring you facilitators to assist your
learning.
Please cooperate with us as we strive to make your learning be as favorable as possible.

God bless you all.

B: INSTRUCTION CHANNELS
 Online Lectures and tutorials
 Online utilisation of Moodle platform
 Online Consultation times with lecturers
 Emails
 Microsoft Teams
 Zoom
 BBB
 Whatsapp

C: GROUND RULES
 Consultation: you are advised to consult your lecturer and/or tutor as soon as you are
faced with a challenge relating to the course so that you can be assisted. Please
adhere to the stipulated consultation times.
 Communication: use the discussion forum on Moodle to post concerns and comments,
which might help other students in the class with similar issues. If you have an urgent
query and you need to see me outside of consultation hours then please direct your
request for consultation and a brief summary of your query via email. Always state in
your subject line. All notifications about this course will be communicated to you via
e- noticeboard, so please check the notice board regularly.
 Attendance: an attendance register will be taken at each class for. The information
may be used as either mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the event of a
request for special consideration and may also contribute towards your final grade for
this course unit. It is in your best interest to attend all lectures and all tutorials for
this course.
 Respect for everyone in class: Let’s behave as adults! I/we commit to treating you
with the respect you deserve and expect the same of you. I will therefore have no
hesitation in asking rude and disruptive students to go offline or disable you and if
necessary to take further disciplinary action against them. It is also expected that
every student respects every other student in the class as well. All students should feel
free to voice their thoughts or questions during lecture sessions.
 Marks: you must query marks within 5 working days after receiving marked
assignments, where given. Queries may not be submitted without a hard copy of the
scripts.

2
 Media in class – You can record an online session for your future consultation.

D: ACADEMIC WRITING
There are a number of academically acceptable referencing conventions or referencing
styles. The Havard referencing style will be used for this course.

E: A NOTE ON PLAGIARISM
Students are expected to uphold academic integrity. It is for this reason that academic
dishonesty is forbidden. You are expected to present your “own” work. Do not copy
information from the Internet or other sources verbatim and present it as yours. Should
you decide to “discuss” your assignment with your classmates before submitting it, make
sure that you write it in your “own” words. Your assignments are expected to illustrate
you own thoughts and application of theoretical content. Any kind of plagiarism will not
be tolerated; hence, strict disciplinary measures will be enforced once a student has been
found committing the offence. Because you will be given your assignment questions in
advance, no late assignments will be accepted for any reason. Proper referencing is
mandatory. All assignments must be typed and handed in softcopy format on the Turnitin
site as well as a hardcopy. Plagiarised work will be severely penalised!

Consequences of plagiarism
 If Turnitin rates the amount of plagiarism below 30%, students normally incur no
penalty.
 However, if the plagiarism is more than 30% and less than 50%, the student/group will
receive a zero for the assessment.
 If the Turnitin rating is greater than 50% and in cases where blatant
copying/plagiarism is detected, the student will be sent to the Disciplinary office and
may be suspended or expelled from the university.

Turnitin
The university uses an online application called Turnitin to detect plagiarism in order to
deter academic dishonesty and cheating and thus raising academic principles. Students
are enrolled on Turnitin by the instructor before the commencement of the assignment.
Upon successful registration, students receive login details, that is, a username and
password via email from Turnitin. It is important to remember your password. Visit
www.turnitin.com home page and enter your login details in the address box provided at
the top right corner of the page. Once you gain access, the system gives an option to
change the password if you so wish.

3
F: ELECTRONIC JOURNALS AND DATABASES
You are required to update your knowledge on both local and international legal issues in
Information Systems. Links to various, laws, newspaper websites, scholarly journal
articles, electronic books and professional associations are all accessible in the library and
via the university library website. Access to full text journal articles and e-books has been
negotiated for you and you will need your Novell login details to access these sites. You
may also access the library website remotely (off-campus) via the link set up specifically
for this purpose. Consult the library should you need assistance in accessing and using
these facilities efficiently.

G: PROCEDURE FOR LODGING COMPLAINTS

 First try to resolve any matter through the class representative or direct with the
lecturer or tutor concerned.
 If an issue is still not resolved, then it should be brought to the attention of the
student support services and later to Head of Subject or Dean of Faculty.
 Refer complaints of a serious nature to Dean of Faculty.

H: COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course of study deals with distinct processes upon which administrative issues are
handled and offers remedies where issues are not properly handled and as a result lead to
inequitable consequences.

The course of study will embed the following:

(a) Administrative Tribunals; Procedure tribunals, powers tribunals, constitutional
tribunals,
(b) Judicial review: Appeal and review, procedural defects, non-judicial remedies.
(c) Grounds for judicial review: Substantive ultra vires, sub-delegation, abuse of
discretion and improper purposes, irrelevant considerations, unreasonableness, no
evidence and fettering discretion.
(d) Natural justice: what is natural justice, Audi alteram partem, nature of hearing, bias,
scope of natural justice, duty to give reasons, error of the record, error of the fact,
and estoppel in public law.
(e) Remedies: Prerogative orders, Certiorari and prohibition, Mandamus, Equitable
remedies: injunction and declaration, damages and Non-judicial remedies:
ombudsperson and others.
(f) Proceedings against government: Contracts with or by the Government, Torts by
Government and torts with or by Government agents/servants as well as procedural
matters.

4
Course purpose
This course serves to facilitate you with the understanding of Administrative processes in
the Ugandan justice system as well as their role in using these processes once you become
lawyers/advocates. The course furnishes a deep understanding of the subject in order to
enable you to integrate the same in your work once you become practitioners.

Course Objectives

By the end of this course, you will:

(a) Have explored the meaning and purpose of administrative processes and be able to
properly explain it to somebody else.

(b) Be able to cite the relevant laws, cases, and institutions in Uganda and elsewhere
which apply administrative processes, how and when it is applied.

(c) Demonstrate understanding of the subject through group research and presentations
on different topics.

(d) Distinguish between the different administrative procedures and processes used
to administer justice and how applied.

(e) Have acquired knowledge on the modalities of the exercise of administrative

powers and quasi- judicial powers within the realm of natural justice.

(f) Explore the remedies available in case breach of an administrative duty and how
such remedies can be obtained.
(g) Identify cases where the Government is in breach of her duties and
responsibilities in administration of justice and how to issue proceedings against
the Government in such cases.

I: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Course work (Online Presentations, Online attendance and participation, Assignment(s))

30%
Final Exam 70%

J: FAITH IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Uganda Christian University is a Christian University founded on the teachings and

principles of Christianity embedded in the holy bible and its core values i.e. Christ
Centeredness, Diligence, Integrity, Servanthood and Stewardship. As Christians, the Bible

5
calls upon us to be people of integrity. Administrative processes deals with ensuring an
honest approach to using the different processes under it. It is a standard test of our
integrity as we are either subjected to or called upon to exercise powers and or use
stipulated processes.
As our law students and future graduates of UCU, you are expected to be very exemplary
where ever you go since our University is established on Christian values. Administrative
processes should not only be studied in theory but be put in practice even as you go out to
work. Carry those same values and or good virtues that you have been clothed with and as
such ensure that those you deal with are treated justly and in a manner that envisages
your true nature of training. You have been prepared to be the difference in the society.
Be that you have been prepared to be during your learning process at Uganda Christian
University.

K: INSTRUCTION/COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
All manner of instruction, assessment and related follow-ups will be through the following
channels;
 Online Lectures and tutorials
 Online utilization of the Moodle platform
 Online Consultation times with lecturers
 Microsoft Teams
 Emails
 Zoom
 Big Blue Button (BBB)
 Whatsapp

REQUIRED READINGS/ TEXTS

 Craig PP on Administrative Law, Sweet & Maxwell London, 1983
 Graffith & Street on Principles of Administrative Law 5th Edition
 Yardley, A Sourcebook of English Administrative Law
 Wade on Administrative Law
 Oluyede on Administrative law in East Africa
 Foulkes on Administrative Law 7th Edition Butterworths
 Garner on Administrative, edited by BC Jones
 John Feldmeier, Daniel J Hall, Constitutional Values: Governmental Powers and
Individual Freedoms, Prentice Hall, 2008.
 P.P Criag – Administrative Law, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2003
 Hugh Corder and Linda Vander Vijver, Realizing Administrative Justice, 2002.

6
 Ssekaana Musa: Administrative Law in East Africa, Law Africa Publications.
 Foulkes David, Administrative Law, Butterworths, 1995.
 A.W. Bradley & E. Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14 th Ed., Longman,
2007
 De Smith, Constitutional & Administrative Law, 8th Ed., Penguin Books, 1998.

Other Text Books/ and Support Materials

 Daniel D. Nsereko – Police Powers & The rights of the individual in Uganda, Fountain
Publishers, Kampala.
 Yardley – Principles of Administrative Law
 Yardley – A source Book of English Administrative Law
 Law Journals
 De Smith – Judicial Review
 Schwartz & Wade – Legal Control of Government.
 Hugh Corder and Tiyanjana Maluwa – Administrative Justice in Southern Africa 1996
 Halsbury’s Laws: Administrative Law.
 Parliamentary legislation.
 Law Reports
 Jackson – Natural Justice.
 D. Hood Phillips – Constitutional and Administrative Law
 Paul Jackson – 6thEdn. Sweet & Maxwell 1978

Statutes:
 The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995
 The Inspectorate of Government Act, 2002
 The Government Proceedings Act Cap 77
 The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72
 The Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 71
 The Evidence Act, Cap 6
 The Local Governments Act Cap 243(as amended)
 The PPDA Act and Rules, 2003
 The Leadership Code (Ammendment)Act 2017
 The Labour Disputes (Settlement and Arbitration) Act
 The Electricity Act 1999
 The Kampala Capital City Authority Act 1 of 2010
 Insurance Act
 Capital Markets Authority Act;
 Income Tax Act;

7
  Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Act;
 National Water and Sewerage Corporation Act Cap 317;
 Petroleum Exploration, Development and Production Act 2013;
 National Oil and Gas Policy for Uganda 2008;

Judicial Decisions:
 Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority as appellant and MessrsMeera
Investments Ltd, respondent Supreme Court Civil Appeal No 22 of 2007

 Cable Corporation (U) LTD versus URA HCCA 1 of 2011

 Lukwago versus the Attorney General and Another Miscellaneous Cause 281 of 2013
 KCC Football Club Ltd versus Capital Market Authority HCCS 367 of 2007
 Congreve vs Home Office (1967)2 W.L.R 291
 Secretary of State vsTameside U.P.C (1976)3 W.L.R 641
 Liversidge vs Anderson (1942) AC 206
 Cummings vs Birkenhead Corporation (1971)2 All ER 881
 Associated Provincial Picture Houses vs Wednesbury Corp (1948)1 KB 223IR
 Sharp vs Wakefield (1880) A.C 473
 Charita Uganda versus Insurance Regulatory Authority High Court Miscellaneous
Application 25 0f 2012;
 Legal Action for People with Disabilities versus The Attorney General, Kampala
Capital City Authority and Another Miscellaneous Cause 146 of 2011
 Electro Maxx (U) LTD versus Electricity Regulatory Authority HCMAC 200 of 2007;
 Prosecutorial Discretion before national courts and international tribunals; Daniel
Nsereko

 Maxnams Properties Ltd vs Chertsey (1964) 1QB 214

 Re Bukoba Gymkahana Club (1963) E.A 468
 Kruse vs Johnson (1898) QB91
 Uganda Cotton co vs R (1961) E.A 79
 Changanial vs Kericho D.C (1965) E.A 371
 Mugabi Edward versus Kampala District Land Board & Anor Misc.Cause 18 of 2012;
 Kuluo Joseph Andrews & 2 Others versus The Attorney General and 6 others Misc 106
of 2010;
 R vs Leigh (1897) QB 132
 Sydney Municipal Council vs Campbell (1925) AC pg 338
 Westminster Corporation vs L.N.W.R (1905) AC pg 426
 Fernandes vs Kericho Licensing Court 1968 E.A 640
 Roberts vsHapwood (1925) AC 578
 Prescott vs Birmingham Corporation (1954) 3 All E.R 698

8
  R vs Great London council Ex Bromley L.B.C (1982) 2WLR pg.62
 R vs Barnett & Camden Rent Tribunal (1972) 1 All ER 1185
 Padfieldvs Minister of Agriculture (1968) A.C 997
 British oxygen Co. v Board of Trade (1970) 3 W.L.R 488
 NcEldourneyvs Forde (1962) 2 All E.R 1039
 Re Ibrahim (1970) E.A 162
 Uganda v Commissioner of Prisons exparte Matovu (1966)E.A 514
 Stringer vs Minister of Housing 1970 1 W.L.R 1282
 R vs Commissioner for L.Admin exparte Croydon Londonborough Council and Anor
(1986) 1 All ER 1033
 R vs Inner London Education Authority and Westminster City Council (1986)1 19 QBD;
 Sebudde Joseph versus Inspector General of Government Misc Cause 32 of 2010;
 Shell (U) Limited and 9 others versus Rock Petroleum and Others CAMA 645 of 2010;
 Hon Justice Anup Singh Choundry versus A.G CACA 91 of 2012;
 Attorney General and Hon Nyombi versus Uganda Law Society HMCA 321 of 2013
 Webb vs Minister of Housing (1965) 2 All E.R 193
 Brimingham& Midlands vs Worcestershire C.C (1967) W.L.R 422
 Ibingira vs Uganda (1966) E.A 306 & 445
 Hanson vs Raddiffe U.D.C (1992)) E.A 400
 Honey vs Harris (1995) 1 NZLR 64 (H.C) Common Wealth Law Bulletin Jan 1995,pg 41
& 43

Introduction To Administrative Processes:

Required reading:
 The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995;
 The Electricity Act 1999;
 The Kampala Capital City Authority Act 1 of 2010;
 Insurance Act;
 Capital Markets Authority Act;
 Income Tax Act;
 Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Act;
 National Water and Sewerage Corporation Act Cap 317;
 Petroleum Exploration, Development and Production Act 2013;
 National Oil and Gas Policy for Uganda 2008;

Cases:

 Lukwago versus the Attorney General and Another Miscellaneous Cause 281 of 2013

9
  Legal Action for People with Disabilities versus The Attorney General, Kampala
Capital City Authority and Another Miscellaneous Cause 146 of 2011
 Electro Maxx (U) LTD versus Electricity Regulatory Authority HCMAC 200 of 2007;
 KCC Football Club Ltd versus Capital Market Authority HCCS 367 of 2007
 Charita Uganda versus Insurance Regulatory Authority High Court Miscellaneous
Application 25 0f 2012

1. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
 The Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, cap 345
 Leadership Code(Amendment) Act 2017
 The Land Act , cap 227
 Halburys Laws of England 1(1) Pg 133;
 Gullame Hussein vs Lila 1959 EACA 734
 Patel vs Plateau Liquor Court 1954 24 KLR 147
 Steven Son vs United Transport Union 1926 AER 99
 University of Ceylon vs Fernando (1960) I WCR 233
 De SonzavsTanga Town Council (1961) E.A 377

2. JUDICIAL REVIEW
 Yasin Sentumbwe & Anor Vs UCU Msc cause 22 of 2017
 Moses Kibalama Nkonge & 3 others vs NUP & Others MSC 226 of 2020
 General :Foulkes pg 314-402
 De Smith - Judicial Review
 Common Wealth Law Bulletin July – Oct,996, pg 725-734
 Common Wealth L B Jan., 1995. pg 40-41
 8THEdnFoulkes Judicial Review 337 - 361
 R Vs Devon County, exparte Baker &Anor (1995) 1 ALLER 73
 World Development Movement Ltd (1995)-1 ALLER ;(1995)1 WLR 1037
 R v Disciplinary Committee of a Jockey Club, ex parte A of aKhan (1993)2 ALLER 853
 R v Football Association Ltd (1993)2 ALLER 833.

a) Appeal and Review

 Wade 33-48
 Foukes 314 - 315
 78 L Q R 241
 85L Q.R 198
 Crag pg 166 - 170.
 Commissioner of Income Tax vs Menon C .A No 19 of 1981

10
 Anisminicvs Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 A C 141
 Rvs Nat Bell Liquors (1922)2 A.C 128
 Karinani Restaurant vs Embu Liquor Licensing Court. (1967) E A 426
 Sargala Investments vs Norwich Corporation (1971)2 Q8 614

b) Procedural Defects
 7th edn, Foulkes 250 - 301
 De Smith 122 - 130
 Foulkes 8th edn 272 – 321
 Cullimorevs Lyme Regis Corporation (1960)2 K B 488
 Hawardvs Environment Secretary (1972)3 WLR 51
 Mainavs Nairobi Liquor Licencing Court {1973)3 All E R 383
 Gullamhusseinvs Lila
 Wing vs Epsom UDC (1904) KB 798
 R vsWakiso Estates (1955)7 ULR 137
 Mwangivs R.

3. GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

a) Substantive ultra vires
 Foulkes314-31
 Oluyede 84, 35
 Kanji vs Tanga Township Authority
 Mbiuvs R (1951)2 KLR 130
 Sheik Bros vs Members of the Control of Hotels Authority (1949)23 KLR 1
 A.G vsFulham Corporation (1921)1 ChD 440
 The Union of the Benefices of Whippmgham (1954)1 AllER 22
 R vs Panel on Take-Overs and Merges, ex parte Guinness plc (1989)1 ALLER 509
 Williams (Co) Construction Ltd vsBalckman (1995) 1 WLR 102
 Waitakere City CounalvsWaitemata Electricity Shareholders Society Inc (1996)2 NZLR
735 (HC)/Commonwealth L B July & Oct 1996. pg 728-734.
 Commonwealth L.B July & Oct 1996, pg.728-734
 Harley Dev’tInc & Anor vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue (1996)1 WLR 727 (P C)
 Annebrit Aslund v Attorney General 2004

b) Sub-Delegation of Functions
 Wade 50-95
 De Smith 263 – 272
 P.P Crag 372-383

11
 Constitution, Article 99
 Bernard vs National Dock Labour Board (1953)2 QB 18
 Municipal Board of Mombasa vs Kala (1955)22 E AC 319
 Dunkely vs Evans (1981)3 All E.R 285
 Winder vs Cambridgeshire County Council (1978) LGR 549
 Osman vs Govt of Malysia (1973)2 M L J 143
 Roberts vs Hapwood (1925) Chap.578
 A.G vs Great Eastern Ry (1880)5 A.C at 470
 A.G vs Southwick Corporation (1932)1 ChD 562
 A G vs Crayford UDC (1962) Chop. Pg 246
 Shah Vershi Devshi vs Transport Licensing Board (1971) E A 289

c) Abuse of Discretion
 Wade 70-88
i) Improper Purposes
 R vs Leigh (1897) QB 132
 Sydney Municipal Council vs Campbell (1925) AC pg 338
 Westminster Corporation vs L N W R {1905)AC pg 426
 Webb vs Minister of Housing ( 1 965)2 All E R 1 93
 Birmingham & Midlands vs Worcestershire C C (1967)1 W LR 422
 Ibingira vs Uganda (1966) E A 306, 445
 Hanson vs Raddiffe U DC (1992) E.A400
 Honey vs Harris (1995)1 NZLR 64 (H.C)/C WEALTH L BULLETIN Jan 1995. pg 41 & 43

ii Irrelevant Considerations
 Fernandes vs Kericho Licencing Court 1968 E A 640
 Roberts vs Hapwoood ( 1 925) AC 578
 Prescott vs Birmingham Corporation 91954)3 All E R 698
 R vs Greal London Council Ex Bromley L B.C (1982)2 WLR pg.62
 R vs Barnett &Camden Rent Tribunal (1972)1 AllER 1185
 Padfied vs Minister of Agriculture (1968) A C 997
 British Oxygen Co vs Board of Trade (1970)3 W L R 488
 McEldourney vs Forde (1962)2 All E R 1039
 Ibrahim (1970) E.A pg 162
 Ex P. Matovu (1966) E A 514
 Stringer vs Minister of Housing 1970 1 W.L R 1282
 De Smith (1972)35 M LR415

12
 R vs Commissioner for L Admin exparte Croydon London Borugh Council and Anor
(1989)1 ALLER 1033
 R vs Inner London Education Authority and West Minister City Council (1986)1 19QBD.

iii) Unreasonableness

 P.P Criag Pg 358-359

 Maxnams Properties Ltd vs Chertsey (1964)1 QB 214
 Congreve vs Home Office (1 976)2 W L R 291
 Secretary of State vs Tameside U P C 1976)3 W L R 641
 Liversidge vs Anderson (1942) AC 206
 Cummmgs vs Birkennead Corporation (1971)2 All E.R 881
 Associated Provincial Picture Houses vs Wednesbury Corp (1948)1 KB 223 Sharp vs
Wakefield (1880) AC 473
 Re Bukoba Gymakhana Club (1963) E A 468
 Kruse vs Johnson (1898) Q B 91
 R vs Harmitte
 Uganda Cotton Co vs R (1933)5 ULR 57
 Kanji vs Tanga Authority H/O
 Hall vs Shoreham UDC (1 964) All E R
 Westminster Bank vs M.O.H (1970)12 All E R
 Patel vs R(1961)E.A79 Changanlal vs Kericho D.C (1965) E A 371

iv. No Evidence
 Ross ClonisvsPapadoupolis (1958)2 All E R 23
 Coleen vs M O.H (1971)1 W L.R433.

v) Fettering Discretion
 General Policy
 Department Policy Contract
 De Smith 277-279 PP Crag 371-372
 Amphitntevs The King (1921) KB 500
 AyrHarbour Trustees vs O/swald (1883). 8 App Cas 623
 Birkdale District Supply Co vsSouthpost Corporation (1926) AC 355 William Corpyvs City
of London Corp. (1951)2 KB 475
 FernaddesvsKerichoLicencing Court (1968) E A 640 pg 640
 Stringer vs Minister of Housing (1970)1 W.L R 1282, pg 1-82
 Soutcliffe Investments vs Bourmouth Corp. (1910)2 Ch 12

13
 Crown Lands Commissioners vs Page (1960)2 QB 274 a: 291-292
 Dowty Boulton Paul vs Wolverhamption Corporation (1971)1 W.L R 204
 Kenya Aluminum vs Minister of Agriculture (1961) E.A 248
 Lavender vs Minister of Housing (1970) W L R ^231
 R vs Torquay Licencing J J (1951)2 K B 784

ASSIGNMENT:

 With legal authorities explain what is meant by the minister having general
supervisory powers over an agency of government or and regulatory body.
 List the different discretionary powers of the Authority and Minister under the
Electricity Act 1999 and the Regulations made there under;
 Classify the aforementioned/listed discretional power;
 CASE STUDY- Kuluo Joseph Andrews & 2 Others versus The Attorney General and 6
others Misc 106 of 2010 – Explain why the decision of the Minister was found to be
illegal.
 Case study - Attorney General and Hon Nyombi versus Uganda Law Society HMCA 321
of 2013 -Explain why the appointment of Kampala Associated Advocates to represent
the Attorney General was found illegal.

4. NATURAL JUSTICE
a) General Introduction PP Crag pg 425
 Twagira vs AG and 2 others SCCA No.4/2007
 Charles Harry Twagira vs.Uganda Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2003
 Soon Yeon Kong kim and another Vs. AG CACR No.06/2007
 Court in Constitutional Petition N0. 12 of 2006, Col (RTD) Dr. KiizaBesigye and 22
others Vs the Attorney General.
 Joint Anti facist Refuge Committee vs Macgrath 341 U.S 123 (1950)
 R vs Chancellor of University of Cambridge (1723)557
 R vs Electricity Commissioners (1924) KB 171
 Ridge vs Baldwin (1964) A C 40
 Anna munthodo vs Oil fied Workers Federation (1961)A C 945
 De Souza vs Tanga Town Council (1961) E A 377
 Mungan vs Transport Appeals Tribunal (1959)
 R vs Road Transport Appeal Tribunal (1959) E A 440
 R vs Gaming Board (1970)2 W L R 1007
 R vs Architects Registration Tribunal (1945)2 AllER 31
 Re K (1965) AC (201)

14
 R vs Dixon exp. Prince and Oliver (1979) W L R 116
 Coperative Retail Services vs Sec of State for Env. (1980) 1 W L R 271
 R vsBarnesley Metropolitan Borougn Council Ex Hook (1976)3 All E R 452 Cinnamond
and Others vs British Airport Authority (1980)2 All E R 286
b) Audi ALteram Partem
Notice of the Charge
 Arlidge vs Local Govt Board (1915JAC (201)
 Board of Education vs Rice (1911)AC 179
 John vs Rees (1969)2 W L.R 128
 Stevenson vs United Road Transport Union (1977)2 All E.R 951
i) Nature of the Hearing
 R vs Chichester J.J Exp Collins (1982)1 W L R 334
 R vs Birmingham City J J (1970)1 All ER 945
 Patel vs Plateau Licensing Court (1954)27 KLR 147
 Immigration Control Board vs Singh (1956) KLR 40
 University of Ceylon vs Fernando (1960) 1 W L R 223
 Nakudda All Jayaratne (1951) A.C 66
 Hadmor Productions vs Hamilton (1982)2 W L R 322
 Petty vs Greyhound Racing Association No.1 (1969) QB 125
 Enderby Town F C vs F.A (1971) ch. 591
 CowasijjeDmshawvsSowasijeeDmshaw Employees Union (1963) E.A 84
 Lake District Special Planning Board vs Sec of State for Environment (1975) E G 417
 R vs Leyland J.J Exp Hawthorne (1979) QB 283
 R vs G.O R E exp Cottrel & Rothon (1980)3 AH E r 265
 R vs Board of Visitors of Blundeston Prison (1982)1 All E R 646 (DC)
 Lloyd vs Me Mahon (1947) AC 625 (1987)1 ALLER 1118
 R vs Amiu Board of the Defence Council. Exp. Anderson (1991)3 ALLER 375
 Adequate Notice, adjournment
 R vs Panel on Take Orers8, Mergers, expGumners plea (1989)2 WLR 863 CA

c) Bias
 P PCriag pg 291-298
 Distinguish between "pecuniary" & non-pecuniary bias
 Reasonable likelihood and the “reasonable suspicion” tests
 Does bias make a decision void or voidable?
 R vs Surrey JJ (1924)1 KB 256
 DeutvsKiambu Liquor Licencing Court
 R vs Camborne JJ (1955) Q6 41

15
 Cooper vs Wilson (1937)2 All E R 762
 Metropolitan Property Co vsLannon (1969)1 QB 877
 Hannam vs Brandford Corporation (1970)1 W.L R 937
 King vs Saskatchewan University (1969)6 OCR 3rd at 120
 Wifkonson vs Barkin Corporation (1948)1 KB 721
 Franklin vs Minister of Town &Country Planning (1948)A.C 87
 Meadowavale Stud Farm vs Stratford Country Council (1979) N.Z.L.R 342
 Tumainivs R (1972)E.A 441
 R vs Kent Police Authority Exp Godden Supra -
 Taylorvs Nat Union of Seamen (1967)1 W L R 532 W
 R vsAltrmcham J J (1975)2 W L r 450
 And see Cranston, (1979) Public Law, 237
 See also Tracey "Disqualified adjudicators” 1982, Public Law, 623.
 R vs Cough (1993)2 AC 646 (1992)4 ALLER 481
 R vs Seven Banks Dist. Council, expFery (1985)3 ALLER 226

d) Scope of Natural Justice

 Board of Education vs Rice (1911 (All E R 179
 Irrigation vs Minister of Heal (1935)2 All E R 395.
 Charles Olio vs K Posts & Tele C A No.56 of 1981
 Nakkuda Ah vsJayaratne (1951) A C 66
 Head of Military Government vs Military Governor of Mid Western State ExparteObiyan
(1973) S C (NIG)23
 Ndegwa's case above
 Sheik Bros above.
 Re Maries application (1958) E.A 259
 Ridge vs Baldwin (1964) AC 40
 De Souza vaTanga Town Council (1961) EA 37?
 Postsallavs Secretary of State (1898) AC
 Re: HK (197/67)2 Q.B 615
 Schmidt vs Home Office (1968)3 All E R 7950
 R vs Aston University (1969)2 QB 538
 Ivaranjanvs Race Relations Board (1976) AIIER 12
 Maxwell vs Board of Trade (1974) QB 533
 Fraser vsMudge 11975)1 W L R 1132
 Maynard vs Osmond (1976)3 W.L.R 711
 O'Toole vs Scott (1965)AC 9390
 Devrajvs Patel (1955)28 K L R 143

16
 Steven vs United Road Transport Union (1977)2 ALLER 941
 Royal Institute for Advancement of Learning exp. Takete (1979)2 D L R
 Glyn vsKeele University {1971)2 ALLER 89
 DurrayapahvsVernandoi, 1970)2 Aller 152
 R vs Gaming Board (1970)2 W.L.R 1009
 Edwards vs S O.G AT (1970)3 W.L.R 713
 Peeravs Delia Santa (1969) E.A618
 Norwest Hoist vsDept of Trade (1978)3 All E R 580
 R vs Sec of State, ExpHosenball (1977) W.L.R 766
 PadhamvsHonse Tax Assrnto (1954)2 T L.R 77
 Mallockvs Aberdeen Corporation (1971)2 All E R 1278
 Re Liverpaol Tax Owners Association (1972)2 QB 299
 Gaimanvs National Mental Health Association (1970)2 W L R 42
 Bates vs Lord Hailsham (1972) W L.R 1373
 Wiseman vsBornernari (1969)2 W L R 706
 PearbeigvsVarty (1971)2 All E R 552
 Varty Inspector of Taxes (1972)2 ALLER 6
 FurnellvsTempleman and Others (1973)3 AllER 569
 R vs Hill Prison Board of UistorsExparteStoGermain (1979)3 All E R 545
 Chief Constable of North Wales Police vs Evans (1982)3 ALLER 141

e) Duty to Give Reasons

 Foulkes 8thEdn 324-366
 Padfieldvs Minister of Agriculture (above)
 Ward vs Shell (1951) All E R 9 .
 Breen vs A.E U (1971)2 Q.B 175
 Re Poyser (1964)2 QB 467
 R vs Crown Court at Krighsbndge (1981)3 All E R417

f) Effect of Denial of Natural Justice

 John Ken Lukyamuzi Vs. Attorney General-SCCA No.2 of 2006
 Annebrit Aslund vs Attorney General 2004
 Durrayapah vs Fernando (above)
 Byrne vs Kmematooraph Renters (1958)1 W L R 762
 Wood vs Woad (1874) L R 9 Exch 190
 Chile vs E.AC (1970) E.A 487
 Stevenson vs United Road Transport (1977)2 All E R 951
 LaKnche vs Secretary of State (l974)2 All E R 112B

17
 Animistic vs No F.C.C (above)
 De Souza vsTanga Town Coucil (above)
 Denton vs City of Auckland (1969) NZIR, 236
 Ridge vs Baldwin (above)
 D.P.P vs Head (1959) AC 83
 Hauslow C CTwickenhem Developments (1970)3 W L R 558
 See also 83 L. Q .R 499
 84 L.Q R 95
 1968)31Camb L.J 83
 (1968)31 NIL R 2, 138
 (1974)90 LQR 436
 (1975) Public Law 43

5. ERROR ON THE RECORD

a) Error of Law and error of fact Wade 88-106 260-262(1966)82
 LQ.R 226, 263, 505
 R vs Nat Bell Liquors (above) (1922)2 ATCD 128
 White and Collms vs Minister of Health (1939)3 All E R 548
 Bunburu vs Fuller (1853)9 Ex Ch 9
 Special Corn miss loners of Income Tax (188ft) 21 QO 313
 R vsShoreditch Investment Ass (1910) KB 859
 R VS Ludlow (1947)1 KB634
 R vs Woodhouse (1906)2 K.B 504
 Ex: Phillipe (1950)2 All E.R 211
 Anisminicvs Foreign Corporation Commission (1969)2 AC 147/(1969)1 ALLER 208
 R vs Crown Court at KnightshriageexpInt Sporting Club (1981) All E R 4170
 Ashbndge Investments vs Minister of Housing (1965)1 WL R 1320 (1965)3 ALLER 371.
374.
 R vs Medical Tribunal. Exparte Gilmore (1552) KB 5740
 Pearlrnanvs Keepers of Harrow School (1978)3 W L R 736
 Re vs Northuberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (1959)1 KB 338
 R vs National Insurance Commissioner (1977)2 All E R 426
 Baldwin & Francis vs Patent Appeal Tribunal (1959) All E R 426
 R vs Governor of Cnxton Prison exp. Ammah (1968) A C 192
 R vs Southampton JJ (1975)2 All ER 1073
 Ex Parte, Moore (1975)2 AllER 807
 'Jurisdictional Review after Pearlman' Rawlings. 1979 Public Law 404
 "Time Limit Clauses and Judicial Review” Gravellis, 1980, M L R 173

18
 Leish "Time Limit Clauses and Jurisdictions! Error 1980 Public Law 34

c) Estoppel in Public Law

 De Smith 88-91
 Southend Corporation vsHodgeson (1962)1 Q6 416
 Wells vs Minister of Housing (1967)1 W L R 100
 Lever Finance vs Westminster Corporation (1970)3 W.L R 732
 Tamali Industries vs Customs &Excise Commissioners (1968) EA 471
 Norfork CC vs Environment Secretary (1913)1 W.L R 14060

6. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT

 The Government Proceedings Act, Cap 77 Laws of Uganda
 The Limitation Act Cap 80 Laws of Uganda
 The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap 72

Contract

 Amphritevs The King (1921)3 KB 500

 Robertson vs Minister of Pensions
 Churdiwardvs R (1865)1 QB 173 1949 1 KB 227

Tort
 S.4 GPA
 Muwonge vs Attorney General (1967) EA 12
 Mukwese vs Attorney General (1972) ULR 29
 S.6 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
 Fisher vs Oldham Corp (1930) All S.R 96
 Attorney General vs Church 1972 EA 392
 Katikiro of Buganda vs Ag. (1958JEA 765
 Sengendovs AG (1972) EA 140

Procedural Matters.
 Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
 Bishop vs AG (1966) EA 463
 Raichura vs Sodhi 1967 EA 624
 The Limitation Act
 Civil Procedure and Limitation Act
 Twagiravs AG and 2 others SCCA No.4/2007

19
 Kakooza Mutale v AG & IGG
 Gordon Sentiba and 2 others Vs. Inspectorate of Government SCCA No.06/2008

Assignment:

What is the rationale of and implication of the decision in Kabandize and 20 others versus
KCCA Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011 on the institution of proceedings against
government?

7. REMEDIES
a) Prerogative Orders

b) Certiorari & Prohibition

 Judicature Act cap 13

 R vs Electricity Commissioners (1924)1 KE 171
 R vs Woodhouse (above)
 Shiekh Bros case (above)
 R Bukoba Gymkhana Case (above)
 Ndegwa case(above)
 KobwomeMera v Attorney General
 Miscellaneous Application 26 of 1998
 Re:Maries (above)
 Nakuda Ali case (above)
 R vs Manchester Legal Aid exp Brand (1952)2 QB 413
 R Milling Ordinance (above)
 R vs Paddington Valuation Officer (1966)1 QC 380
 R vs Criminal Injuries Compensation Coard (1967)2 QB 864
 Jayawardinevs Silva (1970)1 W L.R 1365
 Farmers Bus Service vs Transport Licensing (1959) E A 1959
 Re vs Post Office Ex. p Byrne (1975)1 I C r 221
 Re vs Board of Visitors of Hull Prison Ex p St
 Germain (1978)2 W L R 598
 R vsMacCoil (1974)42 Del R. (3RD ) 7630
 R Paddington Valuation Officer (1965)2 AllER 836
 Devshivs Transport Licensing (1971) E.A 289
 R vsHerrodEx.p. Leed City Council (1976)1 All E A 273, 292.

20
 R vs York JJ (1956) 1 W L R 254
 Railway Corp vsSefu (1973) E.A 327
 R vs Hendon R. D C ex.p Chorley (1933)1 KO 696
 R vsHradford - Avan UDC (1964)1 W.L R 1136
 R vs Secretary of State for Environment (1981)1 AllER 788
 John vsChatalos (1973)3 AllER 410
 MwesigyeEnockvs Electoral Commission 1998

Mandamus

 R vs Met Police Commissioner Ex.p Blackburn

 Re: FazalKassam (1960) E 8 168
 Paddington Valuation Officer (above)
 Passmore vs Oswalthwhistle U.D.C (1898) AC 387
 R vs Hereford Corporation (1970)1 W L R 1424
 C vs Manchester Corporation (1911)1 KB 560
 Shah vs A.G (1970) E A543
 R vs Bank of England (1819)B & ALD 62
 R vs inland Revenue Commissioners, exp National Federation of Self-Employed and
Small Business Ltd (1982) AC 617
 R vs Russell, exp Beaver Brook Newspaper Ltd (1969)1 QB 342 348
 R vs Hereford Corporation, expHanower (1970)1 W.L R 1424
 Brother Peter A G (1980) H C B 107
 Fire master Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation H C.C 23 1998

Equitable Remedies
Injunction & Declaration
 Government Proceedings Act
 Civil Procedure Act
 Civil Procedure Rules
 American Cynamidevs Ethicon (1973)1 AllER 504
 Birmingham Corpnevs Perry Stadium (1972)1 All E R 725
 AG vs Block and Another (1959) E.A 180
 Sazamazovs A.G (1960) E.A 207
 A.G vs Harris (1960)1 QB 31 On Appeal (1961)1 QB 74
 Cox vs Green (1966)Ch 216
 OdhiambovsOdenyo (1973) E.A 416
 Immigration Control Board vs Singh (1956)

21
 Sungai Wangi Estates vs Uni. (1975)1 M.L J 136
 Chutramvs Mystery Model (1972) E.A 525
 Courietvs Union of Post Office Workers (1977)2 W L.R 3100
 (CA)- (1977)3 W.L.R 300 (HL)
 Barnard vs National Dock Labour Board (1953)1 All E.R
 Pynx Granite Co vs Minister of Housing (1960) A.C 615
 Matalangavs A.G (1972) E A 518
 Less vsShowmans Guild (1952)2 QB 3Z90
 Barracioughvs Brown (1997) A C 615
 Ealmg B.C vs Race Relations Board (1972) A C 342
 Healey vs Minister of Health (1955)1 QB 221
 Imperial Tobacco Ltd vs FH-Gen (1980)2 W L R 466
 See also. Cane, "A Fresh Look at Puntons Case" 1980 M.L.R and (1979)
 Punconvs Minister of Pensions No.2 (above)
 Opolotvs AG (1969)
 Anismmic Ltd vs Foreign Compensation Comminion (1968)2 QB 862
 Boath and Co. (International) Ltd vs National Enterprise Board (1978)3 ALLER 624
 Lonrho Ltd vs Shell Petroleum (No.2) (1982] A C 173
 BamsvsBethell (1981)3 WLR 874
 Buxton vs Minister of Housing and Local Government (1961)1 QB 278
 Arsenal Football Club Ltd vsEride (1979)A.C 1
 R vs I R C (1982)AC 6I7
 Ug. Moslem Supreme Council vs Sheikh KagimuMulumba&Others (1980) HCB 110

Damages:
 Government Proceedings Act
 Evidence Act
 Bayne - Government Liability for Torts by Officials E A.L R
 Metropolitan Asylum Co vs Hill (1816) app Case 143
 Hammersmith Ry Co vs Brand (1816) LR 4. H.L 171
 Geddisvs Proprietors of Bann Reservior (187313 App Cas 430
 Dun vs N.W Case Board (1964) QB 866,
 East Suffolk Catchment Board vs Kent (1914) A C 74
 Cooper vs Wandsoworth Board of Works (above)
 Wood vs Wood (1974) LR 9 EX 190
 Davies vs Bromley Corporation (1908)1 KB 170
 O'Connor vs Isaacs (1956)22 QB 328

22
 David vs Abdul Cader (1963) All E R 79
 Kimamvs AG (1969) E.A 29
 Home Office vs Dorset Yacht Co (1970)2 W L R 1148
 Minister of Housing vs Sharp (1970)2 W L R 802
 Dutton vsBognor Regis UDC 91972)2 W L R 299
 Gohilvs AG (1967) ER
 West Nile District Administration vsDritoo (1966) E A 324
 Tamlin vs Hannaford (1950)1 KB 18
 A.G for New South Wales vs Perpetual Trustee Co (1955) A.C 457
 Abbot vs Sullivan (1952) AllER 226
 Conway vsRimmer (1968) AC 910
 R vsLews JJ (1972)3 W L R 279
 Cromtonsvs Customs & Excise Commissioners (1972)2 QB 102
 Tampion vs Anderson (1973) V R 715
 RoncarellivsDuplessis (1959)16 D L R (2nd) 689
 Sirrosvs Moor (1974)3 All ER 776
 Annsvs Merton I.B C (1977)2 W L R 1025
 Burmah Oil Co Ltd vs Governor of Bank of England (1979)1 W L.R 473
 Takaro Properties (in receivership) vs Rowling (1976)2 N.Z.L R
 D vs Nat Society Prev of Cruelty to children (1977)1 All E.R 589
 See also Nott, (1980) Public Law 10
 General Reading of Remedies by P P Crag, pg 461-496

8. NON-JUDICIAL REMEDIES - Ombudspersons and others

 Garner Ch 5. pg.98
 Wade Chd.13
 Inspector of Government Act, Cap 22;
 Hon Sam Kuteesa and 2 others Vs. AG Constitutional Petition No 46 and Reference
No.54 of 2011;
 KakoozaMutale v. A.G 2003
 Fox Odoi v A G 2004
 John Ken Lukyamuzi vs AG-Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No.02/2006
 Gordon Sentiba and 2 others Vs. Inspectorate of Government SCCA No.06/2008
 Uganda Vs. Sarah Kulata Basangwa HCT ACD Case No.202/2011
 R vs Local Government for Administration (1979) QB 287
 Commissions of Inquiry Act

23
 Oluyede - "Development through silent Redress of Grievances in Tanzania" 1972 8 E
A L J 141
 Kakuli "Ombudsman for Kenya" (1970) E.A L J
 Duncan vsCamdell (1942) AC 624
 Rukwaro (1) "Redress of Grievances, the case for an Ombudsman in Kenya" (1973) E A.L
J 141
 "Kenya Sessional Paper No.5 of 1974 and the Ombudsman" (1974) E A L J 115
 "The Select Committee on Parliamentary Commission 1982, Public Law. 49
 Justice. 'The Citizen and the Administration" (1969)
 Our fettered Ombudsman 1977
 Also see, 'Maladministration - a judicial sighting of the golden fleece?' 1979 (95) LQR
488
 Daymondvs Plymouth City Council (1976) AC 609
 R vs Liverpool City Council (1977)1 WLR 995
 R vs Local Commissioner, the Local Commissioner expEastleigh BC (1988)
 R vs Local Commissioner for Admin exp Branford MCC (1979) QB 287
 Also visit www.igg.go.ug and www.ulii.org

“We always try to lean on our own understanding, but it will never be enough. We
try to control everything, but it will always fall through. It is because of this that we
need to trust in the Lord for everything”.

-Proverbs 3:5&6-

24