Movement and residence

Nasaka v Attorney General & Anor (MISC. CAUSE NO. 0179 OF 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 40 (27 June 2016);


Search Summary: 

This was an appeal for orders that the order to depot the
appellant issued by the Minister on 17th November 2015 be
set aside.

Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to entertain this
Court ruled that It was not disputed that the appellant is due to
be deported from Uganda back to Kenya, the minister having
rejected her appeal on grounds that the area of profession
under the East African Community Protocol where persons
can go and work freely does not apply to the subject’s

The law allows an appeal to this court to hear and determine
an appeal from the decision of the Minister and thus this court
is vested with unlimited original jurisdiction to handle such
Court accordingly held that it had jurisdiction to hear the
Court further considered whether appellant was entitled to
work in Uganda.
Court ruled that the appellant is an Executive Housekeeper.
To my understanding and knowledge, this does not fall under
Management consultant services. The applicant allegedly
attached her employment contract and under para. 1.4, it
refers her to the attached annex for the summary of her job
description. She however did not avail this court with a copy
of that annex for court to determine whether indeed as an
Executive Housekeeper, her job description involved
consultancy and short of that, court couldn’t assume it.

Court found that the Minister was right in stating that the
areas of profession under the EACP where persons can go and
work freely does not apply to the appellant’s profession.

Court accordingly dismissed the


Subscribe to RSS - Movement and residence