Judicial Review

Nampogo Robert,Tumwesigye Moses v Attorney General (HCT-00-CV-MC-0120 OF 2008) ((HCT-00-CV-MC-0120 OF 2008)) [2009] UGHC 183 (6 July 2009);


Search Summary: 

This was an application for an order that a writ of
mandamus doth issue ordering the Treasury
Officer of Accounts to pay the applicants.
When the application came up for hearing, learned
counsel for the respondent, raised an objection.
She argued that under rule 5 (1) of S. I. 11/2007,
an application for judicial review should be made in
a period of three months from the time when the
decision was made. According to her, the
impugned decision was made many years ago, so
the application is out of time.

Headnote and Holding: 

Court held that under S. 35 of the Civil Procedure
Act, limit of time for execution of a decree not
being a decree granting an injunction, is set at 12
years from the date of the decree sought to be
executed. The application is not barred by that
law. Even if court were to accept strict
interpretation of Rule 5 (1) in connection with this
matter, court would still find that there is allowance
under the said rule for court to exercise a
discretion in favour of an applicant, where court
considers that there is good reason for extending
the period within which the application shall be
made. The good reason here is the applicants’
exploration of other avenues to seek enforcement
of the award before resorting to the instant
remedy. In the event of upholding the objection,
the application would be struck out and the
applicants would still be entitled to file yet a fresh
application for extension of time under Rule 5 (1),
supra. In a case of 2000 such as this, and in a
matter involving proven human rights violations, in
the absence of a successful appeal to the contrary,
such a course would serve to violate the human
rights of the applicants further. Given that our
Constitution mandates courts to administer justice
expeditiously and without undue regard to
technicalities, court was inclined to over look the
legal impediment, if any, in the greater interests of
justice in accordance with Article 126 (2) (e) of the
Constitution and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure
Act, and allow the applicants to proceed with their
application, on the understanding that their claims
for payment are continuous and therefore
unaffected by the 3 months Limitation period

provided for under the said Rules.

In the final result, the objection stands over ruled


Subscribe to RSS - Judicial Review