Joel Cox Ojuko v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No.109 of 2004) (Miscellaneous Cause No.109 of 2004) [2005] UGHC 57 (10 October 2005)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid6826297 footer;}{\*\cs16 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid6826297 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid-506282448\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid-1258750384 \'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0 \leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713 \'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li6480 \jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 }{\listname ;}\listid230119880}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid230119880\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid657632\rsid739723\rsid1118668\rsid1140578\rsid1575097\rsid1863720\rsid1984897\rsid2382182\rsid2653747 \rsid2914002\rsid3040591\rsid3562769\rsid3748584\rsid4202519\rsid5140645\rsid5851896\rsid5987214\rsid6160898\rsid6752175\rsid6826297\rsid9837246\rsid9862594\rsid10035794\rsid10368405\rsid11285079\rsid11345630\rsid11619305\rsid13716688\rsid15362595 \rsid15627751\rsid15671341\rsid15815075\rsid15929945\rsid16143204\rsid16265381\rsid16340186}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\author jnamusoke}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2009\mo3\dy16\hr13\min4} {\revtim\yr2009\mo3\dy16\hr13\min4}{\printim\yr2006\mo7\dy12\hr15\min41}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages22}{\nofwords3735}{\nofchars21294}{\*\company Acer Customer}{\nofcharsws24980}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot1118668\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15362595 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15362595 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15362595 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15362595 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3040591 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs16\insrsid6826297 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11345630 1}}}{\cs16\insrsid6826297 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid6826297 {\insrsid6826297 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11345630 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\insrsid657632\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \par MISC. CAUSE NO. 109 OF 2004 \par IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 AND }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN \par }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 JOEL COX OJUKO :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 VERSUS \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT \par \par }{\b\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 BEFORE: AG. JUDGE REMMY KASULE \par }{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 \par }{\b\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 RULING: \par }{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 \par This application is for Judicial Review. It is brought under Sections 36 and 38 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 13 and Order XL 11A Rules 2 and 6 (2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules: SI No 75 of 2003. \par \par This court (Okumu Wengi . J.) granted leave to the applicant to bring this application on 24}{\super\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 May 2004 in Miscellaneous Cause Number 97 of 2004, the applicant seeks a }{ \insrsid3748584\charrsid11345630 writ }{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 of certiorari to quash the decision of the Attorney General and Solicitor General of the Government of Uganda interdicting the applicant and subjecting him to Criminal prosecution, such a decision being an erro r on the face of the accord, being in excess of jurisdiction and a violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice. \par \par He also seeks an order of prohibition stopping the two from acting in excess of Jurisdiction and breach of the cardinal rules of natural justice. \par \par An order of Mandamus is sought to compel the said authorities reinstate the applicant to his position as a Senior State Attorney/ Assistant Registrar General of Births and Deaths. \par \par }{\insrsid6160898\charrsid11345630 The grounds of the application are that:- \par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid10035794\charrsid11345630 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (i)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-1080\li1440\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx1440\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid10035794\charrsid11345630 The}{\insrsid6160898\charrsid11345630 Acting }{\insrsid10035794\charrsid11345630 Solici tor General at the material time acted ultravires his powers or exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity when he interdicted the applicant without recourse to the rules of procedure, \par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid10035794\charrsid11345630 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (ii)\tab}The Attorney General acted without jurisdiction when he ordered the interdiction of the applicant, \par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid10035794\charrsid11345630 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (iii)\tab}The applicant was denied his inalienable right to a fair hearing, \par }\pard \qj \li360\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid1575097\charrsid11345630 \tab \tab \tab \tab and \par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid1575097\charrsid11345630 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (iv)\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-1080\li1440\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx1440\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid1575097\charrsid11345630 The applicant has been kept on interdiction for a long time contrary to the Public Service Commission directive and principle of natural justice.}{\insrsid10035794\charrsid11345630 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid1575097\charrsid11345630 \par The applicant, Mr. Joel Cox Ojuko, a qualified lawyer, is employed in Uganda Public Service as a State Attorney}{\insrsid9862594\charrsid11345630 with the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs since January 1990. By 2002 he had risen to the rank of a Senior State Attorney/Assistant Registrar General of Births and Deaths, Registrar General\rquote s office.}{ \insrsid1575097\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid9862594\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 Over time, the Registrar General\rquote s office was the subject of allegations of Corruption and other malpractices from the Public. \par \par Police CID raided the office and arrested some officers. \par \par The applicant was summoned by police to make a statement. \par \par On 2}{\super\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 nd}{\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 December, 2002, the Acting Registrar General, as immediate supervisor, transferred the applicant from the office of Assistant Registrar General of Births and Deaths to the Registry of Business Names and Documents. The transfer was necessitated \'93 Following the regrettable events of 22}{\super\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 nd}{\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 November, 2002,\'94, so stated the Internal Posting Instruction. \par \par The applicant, on receiving the internal posting instruction, wrote to the Acting Solicitor General on 6}{\super\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 December, 2002, requesting that his transfer be suspended till police investigations are complete. He also complained against the instructions of the Acting Registrar General to the Registry staff not }{\insrsid15815075\charrsid11345630 to present any birth and death certi ficate to the applicant for his signature and advice, and also for the removal from him of the official vehicle. Since the Acting Registrar General had refused to give him hearing the applicant prayed the Acting Solicitor General for an \'93 urgent intervention and an opportunity for a fair hearing.\'94 \par \par What followed was an interdiction letter of the applicant by the Acting Solicitor General pursuant to Regulation 36, Public Service Commission Regulations and Government Standing Orders Chapter 1 Section F-r7. \par \par The letter stated that the attention of the Acting Solicitor General had been brought by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) that Criminal papers implicating the applicant with }{\i\ul\insrsid15815075\charrsid11345630 illegal charges for Birth Certificates, abuse of office, illegal registration of companies, \par and \par Employment of non-staff}{\i\ul\insrsid11619305\charrsid11345630 }{\i\ul\insrsid9862594\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid15815075\charrsid11345630 had been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions for perusal and further management. As investigations were to continue, the applicant was interdicted from his office with immediate effect. The in terdiction was to last until the applicant\rquote s case is disposed of. The applicant was to receive half salary and not leave Uganda without the Solicitor General\rquote s permission. \par \par On 8}{\super\insrsid15815075\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid15815075\charrsid11345630 January 2003 the Director of Public Prosecutions consented to a police charge sheet number HQS-Co-1021-2002; whereby the applicant was charged in count 1 }{ \insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 of Abuse of office C/s 83 (1) of the Penal Code Act. The particulars of the offence were that in 2001 to November 2002, at the Registrar General\rquote s office, the applicant, as Sen ior State Attorney in Charge of the Registry of Births and Deaths, in abuse of authority of his office, carried on or directed to be carried on in government office premises, a document lamination business, an arbitrary act prejudicial to the interests of his employees.}{\insrsid15815075\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 \par The charge had been preferred by one Edison Mbiringi P/SS, Uganda Police. \par \par On 16}{\super\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 December 2002, the Acting Solicitor General notified Public Service Commission of the interdiction of the applicant. \par \par On 14}{\super\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 January 2003, the Public Service Commission wrote advising the Acting Solicitor General to make a formal submission for the Commission to note the applicant\rquote s interdiction in accordance with the laid down procedure. \par \par No proper evidence has been adduced before Court as to what is the present status of the case of the applicant with the Public Service Commission. \par \par The Respondent filed on 17}{\super\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 June 2005, an affidavit sworn by the Learned Solicitor General, Lucien Tibaruha. This application was filed on 31}{ \super\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 st}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 May 2004 and served upon the Respondent on 4}{\super\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 June 2004. \par \par Rule 7(4) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules SI 75 of 2003 provides that:- \par \par \tab }{\b\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 \'93Any Respondent who intends to use any affidavit at \tab the \tab hearing shall file it with the Registrar of High \tab Court as soon as practicable and in any event, unless \tab the court otherwise directs, \tab within fifty six days after \tab service upon the Respondent of the documents \tab required to be served by sub rule (1) of this rule.\'94 \par }{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 \par The affidavit in reply on behalf of the Respondent filed on 17}{\super\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 June 2005 was manifestly out}{\insrsid11285079\charrsid11345630 of}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 time}{ \insrsid11285079\charrsid11345630 . No direction of the court was first sought before the same was filed. The court rejects the same. The essence of the applicant\rquote s complaint is that he was never given an opportunity to give his side of the story t o the authorities involved in his interdiction, namely:- the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions. He was thus condemned unheard.}{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid11285079\charrsid11345630 \par He further complains that ever since his interdiction no disciplinary proceedings have been preferred against him and there are no indications that the interdiction is about to be lifted. \par \par The Respondent opposes the application, submitting that the applicant\rquote s interdiction was proper under Rule 36 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, as well as the Government Standing Orders, Chapter 1 F-r7. \par \par He further submits that the applicant\rquote s case is to be resolved by the Public Service Commission and that the said Commission }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 conducts}{\insrsid11285079\charrsid11345630 a hearing at which the applic ant will have an opportunity to defend himself. \par \par Finally the Respondent asserts that the decision to interdict the applicant was done in exercise of statutory and mandatory duty on the basis of credible reports of misconduct by the applicant and because th ere was need to investigate by the CID, police, alleged criminal misconduct by the applicant, in the course of his employment as a public servant. \par \par Prerogative orders are remedies where by courts control the exercise of power by those in public offices. \par \par Originally, in England, they were only available to and for the benefit of the crown against the ordinary people. Through their systematic application the crown was able to make public authorities and inferior tribunals do the bidding of the crown }{ \insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 by keeping them within their proper jurisdiction of exercise of authority. This resulted in efficiency, uniformity and order in the }{\insrsid15929945\charrsid11345630 judicial}{\insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 system. The orders ceased to be a preserve of the crown and became available even to commoners.}{\insrsid11285079\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 \par In Uganda the 1995 Constitution whose chapter four is an elaborate Bill of Rights, has made the process of Judicial Review become an essential }{\insrsid15929945\charrsid11345630 judicial}{\insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 remedy. \par \par Article 42 of the Constitution makes it a right for one appearing before an administrative officer or body to be treate d justly and fairly; and if not so treated, seek redress in a court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against him or her. \par \par Article 50 (1) gives right to any one who claims that a fundamental or other right has been infringed or threatened to apply to a competent court for redress. \par \par Article 173 (b) protects a public officer from being dismissed or removed from office or reduced in rank or otherwise punished without just cause. \par Chapter Four and articles 42, 50(1), 173(b) of the 1995 Constitution has given greater importance to the process of Judicial Review. \par \par Certiorari issues to quash a decision of a statutory or public authority which is ultravires or is vitiated by an error on the face of the record. \par \par Originally certiorari would only is sue where there was an exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial authority or function. Its application is now wider. Certiorari now extends to acts and orders of a statutory body or authority, which has power to impose a liability or give a decision which determines the rights of the affected party See: \par }{\b\i\insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 Mwesigye Enock V. Electoral Commission }{\b\insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 HCMA 62/98 (19.12.98 at Kampala) 107 [1998] 11 KALR \par }{\insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid15929945\charrsid11345630 The primary object of certiorari and prohibition had been to make the government machinery operate properly and in the public interest rather than private interest. This too has changed over time, are now also certiorari and prohibition. }{\b\i\insrsid15929945\charrsid11345630 Lord Atkin, L. J. in The King V. Electricity Commissioners}{ \insrsid15929945\charrsid11345630 , Ex-parte London. \par Electricity Joint Committed [1924] \par 1KB 171 at 205 propounded that:- \par \tab }{\b\insrsid15929945\charrsid11345630 \'93Whenever anybody of persons, having legal authority \tab to determine the rights of subjects and having the duty \tab to act judicially act in excess of their legal authority, \tab they are subjected to the controlling jurisdiction of the \tab King\rquote s Bench Mission exercised in these writs.\'94 }{\b\insrsid2382182\charrsid11345630 \par }{\b\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 Prohibition is often a twin sister of \'93Certiorari\'94. It is issued by Court to forbid some act or decision which would be ultra vires or initiated by error. }{\insrsid2653747\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 \par A mandamus issues to compel performance of a statutory duty. It is often resorted to compel public officers vested with statutory responsibilities to perform those duties and functions. \par \par Judicial Review as a Judicial remedy is now well recognized in East Africa; and as already pointed out, particularly so in Uganda. \par \par Proof of this is the long list of court authorities on Judicial Review, of this Region:-}{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 \par In}{\b\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 Re An Application by Magindas Himbhaj Desai}{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 : [1954] T. L. R 192 certiorari lies, if a statutory Tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, the prov ision in the law that the decision is not to be questioned in court, not withstanding. \par \par See also: In}{\b\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 Re}{\b\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 An Application by Buboba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478 \par }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 \par In}{\b\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 Re}{\b\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 An Application by HirJi Transport Service [1961] EA 85. \par \par In Re An Application by Gideon Waweru Gathuguii [1962] EA 520}{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 }{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 \tab \tab \tab \tab and }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 of recent}{\b\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 }{\b\i\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 Masaka District Growers Co-operative Union V}{\b\i\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 s}{\b\i\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 . Mumpiwakoma Co-operative Society Ltd}{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 }{\b\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 [1968] EA 630.}{\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 \par \par }{\b\i\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Director of Pensions V}{\b\i\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 s. }{\b\i\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Cockar [2000] 1 EA 38.}{\b\i\insrsid3562769\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 \par More specifically for }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 Uganda See}{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 : Re:}{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Mustapha Ramadhan:}{\b\i\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 1996 :[1996] 5 KALR 86}{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 . \par \par In the matter of }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Retirement of David Behimbisa Bashakara: High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 48/2001}{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 (Musoke-Kibuuka . J.) unreported, \par \par \tab }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 : High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2000: }{\b\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \tab }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 High Court, Mbale: Rugadya Atwoki . J. 18/09/02 :}{ \insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \tab }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Ibaad Sherif V}{\b\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 s}{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 .}{\b\i\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Pallisa Town Council \par }{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 \tab \par \tab }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 : High Court Mbale Miscellaneous Application Number }{\b\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \tab }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \tab }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 129 of 2000}{ \insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 }{\b\i\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 John Kashaka Muhanguzi Vs. }{\b\i\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \tab }{\b\i\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 kapchorwa District \tab Council}{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 : (unreported) \par \tab : In the matter of an interdiction of Bukeni Gyabi Fred : }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 High \tab Court Civil Miscellaneous Cause No. 39 of 1999}{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Kibuuka \endash \tab Musoke . J. (unreported) \par \par \tab }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 :Denis Bireije Vs Attorney General Miscellaneous }{\b\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \tab }{\b\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 Application No. 902 of 2004 }{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 R. O. Okumu Wengi. J. }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 \tab }{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 (unreported). \par \par Bearing in mind the principles of the law contained in the above referred to authorities, it is necessary to consider the facts of this application and apply the law to them. The events of 22}{\super\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 nd}{ \insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 November, 2002, and those soon thereafter are, on the whole, not in dispute. They are well brought out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the applicant\rquote s affidavit dated 28}{\super\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 th}{ \insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 May, 2004, filed in support of the application:- \par \par }{\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 Paragraph 7:}{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\b\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 \'93That is November 2002, the police seized the Birth and \tab Death Registry a nd arrested the subordinate staff and Mr. Bisereko wrote a letter transferring the applicant to another section and notified UNICEF and Uganda \tab Bureau of Statistics not to regard the applicant as the}{\b\i\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 }{ \b\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 \tab officer responsible for births and deaths registration \tab (See annexture \'93A\'94 and \'93B\'94 \'93 \par }{\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11345630 {\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 \par Paragraph 8: \par \tab }{\b\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 \'93That the applicant notified the Solicitor General to \tab intervene but instead the Applicant was interdicted on \tab the 16}{\b\super\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 th}{\b\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 day of December 2002 and Criminal Charge of \tab abuse of office were preferred against me for allegedly \tab keeping a private laminating machine without being \tab given an opportunity to defend himself against the said \tab allegations (See Annextures \'93C\'94 \'93D\'94 and \'93E\'94 \'93 \par }{\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 \par The applicant does not assert that the CID acted without any reasonable grounds on 22}{\super\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 nd}{\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 November 2002. \par \par Neither does the applicant assert that the police acted at the instigation of any one else, other than in executing their duty to detect, prevent crime commission and crime suspects. \par \par The applicant claims in paragraph 6 of his affidavit of his head of Department, Mr. Bisereko Kyomuhendo, calling him in November 2000 and suggesting that he had a company that could produce birth certificates}{\insrsid16340186\charrsid11345630 cheaply and the same should be recommended to UNICEF to which suggestion the applicant declined.}{\insrsid16143204\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid16340186\charrsid11345630 \par The implied connotation is that there was animosity over the issue between the applicant and his head of Department. \par \par However, without more concrete evidence this court cannot conclude that this is what moved the whole CID to invade the applicant\rquote s offices. \par \par According to paragraph 3 page 7 of Annexure \'93G\'94 to the applicant\rquote s affidavit, a loose minute by the Ag. Registrar General dated 14}{\super\insrsid16340186\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid16340186\charrsid11345630 April 2003, to the Hon. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs}{\insrsid1863720\charrsid11345630 . }{\insrsid16340186\charrsid11345630 The Registrar General reports to the Minister }{\insrsid1863720\charrsid11345630 t hat the police had finalized their investigations and the Director of Public Prosecutions had approved the Criminal Charging of the applicant in December 2002. the charging had not taken place because the applicant had jumped police bond and had since el uded police.}{\insrsid16340186\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid1863720\charrsid11345630 \par The applicant is surely aware of this allegation of jumping police bond and eluding police. He produced annexure \'93G\'94 by attaching it to his affidavit. It is curious that the applicant makes no specific denial of this allegation. Neither doe s he state that on being aware of the allegation he produced to police and protested against. Nor does he give any explanation to Court as to what happened to on the charges preferred against him by }{\insrsid2914002\charrsid11345630 the police and consented by the DPP. This conduct of the applicant is not consistent with the innocence of the applicant of the allegation.}{\insrsid1863720\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid2914002\charrsid11345630 \par The Solicitor General asserts having interdicted the applicant pursuant to Rule 36 of the Public Service Commission Regulations. The Rule provides:- \par \par \tab }{\b\i\insrsid2914002\charrsid11345630 \'93Where a responsible officer considers that the Public \tab interest requires that a public officer should cease to \tab exercise the powers and functions of his office, he may \tab interdict the officer from the exercise of those powere \tab and functions, if proceedings for his dismissal are being \tab taken or are about to be taken or if Criminal \tab proceedings are being instituted against him.\'94 \par \par }{\insrsid2914002\charrsid11345630 In the considered view of this court, the facts as contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the applicant\rquote s affidavit constituted legitimate grounds for the immediate interdiction of the applicant. \par \par The contention of the applicant that he ought to have been given a hearing before being interdicted is not well founded. \par \par This is because the criminal investigations that the CID had carried out, and was }{\insrsid10368405\charrsid11345630 continuing}{\insrsid2914002\charrsid11345630 to carry out, and which necessitated the interdiction, included an explanation from the very applicant, as regards the allegations of possible commission of Crimes by the applicant in the course of his work in a public office. It is only after the poli ce had come to the conclusion, the applicant\rquote s explanations notwithstanding that the investigations pointed to the applicant as a crime suspect, that the CID forwarded the investigations to the DPP and detailed the Solicitor General as the responsible officer of the applicant. \par \par Both the Uganda police }{\insrsid6752175\charrsid11345630 and the Director of Public Prosecutions are creatures of the Constitution: Articles 120 and 121.}{\insrsid2914002\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid6752175\charrsid11345630 \par To prevent and detect crime is one of the functions of the police article 212 (c). Section 31 of the police Act empowers the police to institute Criminal proceedings agai}{\insrsid5851896\charrsid11345630 nst any one before a magistrate or undertake any other legal process against a person Uganda with an offence. \par \par Under Article 120 (3) of the Constitution the Directors of Public Prosecutions has powers to direct the police to investigate any information of a criminal nature and to institute criminal proceedings against any one in a court of law, s}{ \insrsid1140578\charrsid11345630 ave a court martial. \par \par In carrying out the duties of the office, the Director of Public Prosecutions is no t Subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. The DPP is only guided by public interest, interests of the administration of Justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process. \par \par In the case of the applicant, the police, on detecting possible crimes being carried out at the applicant\rquote s office involving the applicant and some of his staff, commenced criminal investigations, passed over the investigation to the DPP and informed the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General found it pr oper under Rule 36 of the Public Service Regulations to interdict the applicant. \par \par In the considered view}{\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 this court}{\insrsid1140578\charrsid11345630 of the applicant having been given the opportunity to give his explanation}{\insrsid5140645\charrsid11345630 to the police about the possible crimes the CID police was investigating}{\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 , it was not necessary that before interdicting the applicant, the solicitor general ought to have given another hearing to the applicant. \par \par The conclusion that it was in the public interest that the applicant be interdicted while criminal investigations against him continue and or the DPP decides upon the matter cannot be faulted by this court. \par \par The applicant further complains that his interdiction was unlawfully directed by the Attorney Genera. He relies on annexure \'93F\'94 and \'93G\'94 to his affidavit as proof of this. The annexures are loose minutes by the Acting Registrar General to the Ag. Solicitor General (Annexure F) and the Hon. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (Annexure G) respectively about the applicant other staff and investigati on. \par \par The Attorney General is by constitution the principal adviser of Government: Article 119 of the Constitution. \par \par On 3}{\super\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 rd}{\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 December, 2002, The Honourable Attorney General met the Acting Solicitor General, the Commissioner Contracts and Negotiations and the Ag. Registrar General about the events of 22}{\super\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 nd}{\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 November, 2002. \par \par It was reported to the meeting that those employees from the Registry of Births and Deaths, who had been questions by the CID and been released on police bond had immediately resumed their work at the Registry.}{\insrsid6752175\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid15671341\charrsid11345630 The Attorney General disagreed with the resumption of duty by these employees and directed that the officers be interdicted. However, before any interdiction was done, the Ag. Registrar General was to make a report to the Ag. Solicitor General as a basis for action.}{\insrsid4202519\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid15671341\charrsid11345630 \par In the view of this court Honourable the Attorney General as principla legal adviser to Government, was within his constitutional powers to tender the advice he gave. \par \par It is also good common sense and promotes a perception of Justice that if a public officer makes himself/herself to be the subject of Criminal investigations and to be released on police bond in connection with duties of his/her public office, that such officer keeps away from his/her office until the invest igations are completed one way or the other. \par \par At any rate, in this instance of the applicant, the Attorney General\rquote s directive to interdict was subject to the Ag. Registrar General making a report to the Ag. Solicitor General as a basis for action. Dependi ng on the report so made the Acting Solicitor General was to make the ultimate decision whether or not to interdict. \par \par The Court thus finds that the complaint that his interdiction}{\insrsid1984897\charrsid11345630 was unlawfully directed by the Attorney General as not sufficient for this court to quash the interdiction. \par \par The applicant further contends that since at any one moment he has never been given an opportunity to give his side of the story to all the authorities involved in this matter, to wit the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice and the Dpp; his interdiction ought to be quashed. \par \par The applicant, intentionally, the court so believes, leaves out the Uganda police, amongst the authorities that have caused his interdiction. He thus concedes in a way that as far as police is concerned, he was afforded an opportunity to be heard. \par \par The police on raiding the applicant\rquote s office, required him to report to police, questioned him, and then referred the matter to the Dpp and reported to the Solicitor General as the supervising officer of the applicant. \par \par The court finds that this being the case; the issue of the applicant being given an opportunity to be heard before being interdicted does not arise such opportunity was part and parcel of Re}{\insrsid9837246\charrsid11345630 -investigations befor e being interdicted by police. Such a similar opportunity will be availed to the applicant if later on the police and DPP determine that the applicant has to stand criminal trial or not. The same opportunity will also be availed to the applicant if Publ ic Service}{\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 Commission takes up his case. \par \par This part of the applicant\rquote s complaint is rejected by court. \par \par The applicant lastly complains that ever since his interdiction in December 2002 no disciplinary proceedings have been preferred against him and there are no indications that the interdiction is about to be lifted. \par \par The applicant, as already pointed out, has not in any way indicated to court as to why he has no clearance from the police and the DPP with regard to the criminal charges as contained in the police charge annexure \'93E\'94 to his affidavit. In the absence of any evidence of termination of those charges, the court infers that the same are still pending against the applicant. \par \par It would appear also from annexure \'93H\'94 to the applicant\rquote s affidavit that by the 16}{\super\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 December 2002, the applicant\rquote s case of interdiction had been forwarded to the Public Service Commission by the Solicitor General. \par \par No evidence has been furnished from the Public Service Commission as to what is the present status of the case of the applicant with the Commission since 14}{\super\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 th}{\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 January 2003 when annexure \'93H\'94 to the applicant\rquote s }{\insrsid15671341\charrsid11345630 affidavit was written. The burden is on the applicant to provide the necessary evidence upon which the court can make specific findings to grant the prayers he seeks. \par \par The court is not satisfied that this burden has been discharged by the applicant as regards the status of his case with the Public Service Commission. \par \par The grant of any prerogative order is a matter of the exercise of the discretion of the court. T hat discretion must be exercised judiciously. The decision of the court must be based upon common sense and justice after considering the relevant matters of the cause: See Hoffman \endash La Roche V. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: [1975] AC 295 and See also: High Court Civil Application for Judicial Review No. 35 of 2005: }{\b\i\insrsid15671341\charrsid11345630 John J}{\b\i\insrsid1984897\charrsid11345630 et Tumwebaze}{ \b\i\insrsid15671341\charrsid11345630 V. Makerere }{\b\i\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 University Council and 2 others. }{\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 See also:}{\b\i\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 }{\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 413 of 2005 }{\b\i\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 Amanda Magambo V. Electro Commission.}{\b\i\insrsid1984897\charrsid11345630 }{\insrsid1984897\charrsid11345630 }{\insrsid15671341\charrsid11345630 \par }{\b\i\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid16265381\charrsid11345630 After considering all relevant matters of this application and giving the consideration to the legal }{\insrsid3748584\charrsid11345630 principles applicable, this court finds that this is not such a case where the court in the exercise of its discretion should grant the orders of Certiorari, prohibitio n and mandamus prayed for by the applicant. The court declines to grant the said orders to the applicant. The application stands dismissed with costs.}{\insrsid13716688\charrsid11345630 \par }{\insrsid3748584\charrsid11345630 \par \par \par }{\b\insrsid3748584\charrsid11345630 Remmy Kasule \par Ag. Judge \par 10}{\b\super\insrsid3748584\charrsid11345630 th}{\b\insrsid3748584\charrsid11345630 October 2005}{\insrsid1118668\charrsid11345630 \par }}