Okumu v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 284 of 2017) [2025] UGHCCD 20 (14 February 2025)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

## **CIVIL DIVISION**

## **MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 284 OF 2017**

**OKUMU MARTIN ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**

# **VERSUS**

**ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

## **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA**

### **RULING**

The Applicant brought this application under Article 42 of the Constitution, section 8 (4), (5) and (6) of the Advocates Act as amended, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52, Rule 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for orders that;

- 1. A declaration that section 8 (8) (c) and (d) of the Advocates Act which Law Council's based on not to admit the applicant on the roll of advocates was non-existent. - 2. A declaration that the applicant has fulfilled all statutory requirements under the Advocates Act of 19170 read together with the Advocates (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2002. - 3. A declaration that there is no legal provision that bars the applicant in the circumstances from being admitted on the roll of advocates.

- 4. A declaration that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be issued a certificate of eligibility for enrolment as an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda and all Courts subordinate thereto. - 5. A declaration that the applicant has fulfilled all statutory requirements under the Advocates Act of 1970 read together with the Advocates (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2002. - 6. An order that the applicant be issued with a certificate of eligibility for enrolment as an advocate of the High Court of Uganda by the respondent. - 7. General damages and costs of this application be awarded to the applicant - 8. Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Honourable court.

The grounds in support of this application are stated very briefly in the Notice of Motion and in the affidavit of Okumu Martin which is detailed but briefly are that the applicant is a holder of a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Uganda Christian University and Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Training from Rwanda Law School (Institute of Legal Practice and Development) obtained in 2011 and 2016 respectively. In 2007, the Republic of Rwanda applied to become a member of Common Wealth States at Common Wealth heads of government meeting held in Uganda. In 2009, it was admitted as a member of the Common Wealth States at Common Wealth Heads of government meeting held in Trinidad and Tobago.

Since then, the Republic of Rwanda set up a post graduate law school to train lawyers under the common law system. That the Rwandan Law School, Institute of Legal Practice and Development hires common law Professional Advisers including Law Development Centre's professional advisers like counsel Nakachwa Florence to train its students pursuing post graduate diploma in legal practice. That the applicant was posted at M/s Tumwebaze Atugonza Kobusingye & Co. Advocates in Kampala, Uganda between December, 2014 to July 2015 to undertake internship from Uganda for at least three months having been part of the requirement to pass the course while pursuing post graduate diploma in legal practice Institute of Legal Practice and Development Rwanda. Upon the applicant being awarded with post graduate diploma in legal practice from Rwanda Law school, institute of Legal Practice and Development, National Council for Higher Education (the only body mandated to equate academic and professional qualification in Uganda) equated the diploma granted to the applicant to the postgraduate diploma in legal practice awarded in Uganda.

On the 29th July, 2016, the applicant filed his application for a certificate of eligibility for enrolment as an advocate of the High Court of Uganda and all courts with the Law Council. On 9th August, 2016, Law Council issued the applicant with a notice to gazette. The Law Council unreasonably took a full year to determine the applicant's application and on the 12 July, 2017 declined to grant the applicant a certificate of eligibility to enroll as an advocate in Uganda on the basis that the Republic of Rwanda is not common law country pursuant to section 8 (8) (c) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 2002 whereas not. The impugned decision of the Law Council was communicated to the applicant on the 28th of August, 2017.

The impugned decision is tainted with irregularities, irrationalities and illegalities in as far as it is incompatible with the applicant's right to practice his profession and being founded on non-existent law and on ignorance or assumption of facts and law. That the applicant has since remained working in approved law firms from 2015 to date.

The respondent opposed this application and filed an affidavit in reply deponed by Ssempebwa Edward Fredrick, a member of the Law Council and Chairperson of the Law Council Committee on Legal Education and Training who stated that this application has no merit and does not meet the threshold and bench mark for issuances of the remedies sought. He stated that the Law Council is a statutory body which operates under the rules and guidelines as provided for in the law. He stated that the applicant holds a Bachelor of Laws granted by a university in Uganda and applied for a certificate of eligibility from the Law Council on the 29th of July, 2016 as an advocate of the High Court and all subordinate Courts. The applicant did not meet the requirements or follow the instructions prescribed for the acquisition of professional skills by the Law Council. That by holding a post graduate diploma from Rwanda Law Institute of Legal Practice and Development, practicing in Uganda for 3 months and the rating from the National Council for Higher Education does not qualify the applicant to be issued with a certificate of eligibility on grounds that the post graduate bar qualification the applicant holds was not obtained from an institution accredited by the Law Council which is; the Law Development Centre, and that he has not been enrolled and practiced in a country operating the common law system for one year which would qualify him for a certificate of eligibility.

He stated that the action by the National Council of Higher Education to equate the Rwanda Bar Course to a Post Graduate Diploma of the Law Development Centre was ultra vires and it has no power to designate Rwanda as a Common Law country. He further stated that the power to designate a country as one which operates a common law system is vested in the Law Council. The post graduate diploma the applicant holds does not favour the applicant to practice under the common law system and the decision not to grant the applicant a certificate of eligibility is not tainted with any irrationalities, irregularities and illegalities that warrant this application.

Two issues were framed by the applicant for court's determination;

# *1. Whether the Law Council was justified in denying the applicant a certificate of eligibility?*

### *2. What the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought?*

The respondent raised a preliminary object which I shall determine first.

The applicant was represented by Mr. Kato Paul Ssemengo whereas the respondent was represented by Mr. Mukama Allan.

At the hearing of this application the parties were advised to file written submissions which I have had the occasion of reading and considered in the determination of this application.

### **Preliminary Objection:**

#### *Whether the application is time barred?*

The respondent submitted that the section 8 (4) of the Advocates Act as amended provides that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Law Council on enrolment, may within 30 days from the notification by the Secretary Law Council, apply to court for review. He further submitted that the applicant on page 2 paragraph 12 of his affidavit in support of the application clearly states that the decision of the Law Council complained of was communicated to him on 28th July, 2017. This application was filed in this Court on 8th September, 2017.

Counsel further submitted that the applicant should have applied for review before the 27th August, 2017 in order to be within the time stipulated by law. However, the same was filed 42 days later. He relied on the case of *Daniel Byaruhanga vs Attorney General & Ors HCMC 177 of 2018* where Hon. Justice Bashaija K Andrew referred to the case of *Hilton vs Sutton Stream Laundry (1946) 1KB 1 at page 81* where it was observed that statutes of limitations are in their nature strict and inflexible. Their overriding purpose is that litigation shall be automatically stifled after a particular length of time, irrespective of the merits of the particular case.

He further submitted that in causes of action where the limitation action is prescribed, once the axe falls, it falls and a defendant who has the benefit of the defence of limitation shall of course be entitled to take advantage of it. He therefore submitted that the challenge of the Law Council decision is clearly outside the 30 day period of limitation whereupon the declarations arising therefrom are time barred. The applicant did not seek for extension of time within which to file the present application. He therefore prayed that this Court finds the present application is barred by limitation and ought to be dismissed.

The applicant submitted that this preliminary objection is misconceived in law and ought to be overruled. Counsel submitted that the application was filed within 30 days and relied on section 34 (a) (c) of the Interpretation Act to state that in the computation of time within which to file matters in court, weekends and public holidays are not considered. He submitted that the applicant received the decision on the 28th July, 2017 which was a Friday and considering the exclusion of Sundays and Saturdays, this application was filed on 8th September, 2017 a date which was still within the stipulated 30 days.

#### **Analysis**

*Section 13 (4) of the Advocates Act* as amended provides that a person aggrieved by the decision of the Law Council on enrolment, may within thirty days from the notification of the decision of the Law Council, apply to the High Court for a review. The applicant under paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support of the application states that the decision of the Law Council complained of was communicated on the 28th July, 2017. This application was filed on the 8th September, 2017.

It is trite law that time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and must strictly be strictly complied with. Section 13 (4) provides for 30 days as being the time for which a person may apply for review. The applicant having received the decision on the 28th July, 2017 should have filed this application on the 27th August, 2017. However, it was filed on the 8th September, 2017 being 42 days from the receipt of the decision.

The rule of laches is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait-jacket. The courts do not follow a rigid, but a flexible, measure of delay. It should be emphasized that the rule that the court may not enquire into belated and stale claims is not applied in a rigid manner. The court can exercise its discretion in the circumstances where it is clear that there is no inordinate delay by the applicant to seek recourse from the courts of law.

In the circumstances, I find that the applicant filed this application before the court out of the stipulated time.

This preliminary objection is therefore upheld. But for completeness I will determine the merits

### **Determination**

# *Whether the Law Council was justified in denying the applicant a certificate of eligibility?*

The applicant stated that he is a holder of a Bachelors of Laws degree from Uganda Christian University and a post graduate diploma in legal practice from Rwanda's Institute of Legal Practice and Development recognised by the National Council for Higher Education which has been equated a being equivalent to the post graduate diploma in legal practice awarded by the Law Development Centre. The applicant further submitted that he is an advocate of the High Court of Rwanda and as such, applied for a certificate of eligibility to be enrolled as an advocate of the High Court of Uganda based on these qualifications. The applicant based his application on the Advocates Amendment Act, 2002, the Advocates Enrolment and Certification Regulations, the Advocates (Professional Requirements to Admission to Post Graduate Bar Course) Rules, Legal Notice No. 17 of 2007, the Treaty for establishment of the East African Community, the Protocol on Establishment of the East African Common Market, Annex V to Protocol on Establishment of East African Community Common Market, Schedule on Commitment on Progressive liberation of Services and the Universities and Tertiary Institutions Act. He stated that under sections 8 (1), (8) (a) and (13) of the Advocates Amendment Act and section 5 (k) of UAOTI and Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Notice 17 of 2007, he qualifies to be issued with the certificate of eligibility for enrolment as an advocate in Uganda without being subjected to any further study or examination in Uganda.

The applicant further relied on section 5 (k) of the Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act as amended which provides the National Council for Higher Education as the statutory body vested with the powers to determine the equivalence of all types of degrees, professional qualifications of degrees, diplomas and certificates obtained from outside Uganda. He stated that it recognises and equates the said qualifications with those awarded by institutions of higher learning in Uganda for recognition of the same in Uganda by all entities. The applicant stated that the certificate of equivalence Annexture D, his post graduate diploma in legal practice is recognised and equated as being equivalent to the one awarded by Law Development Centre by the National Council for Higher Education, the only competent and mandated entity under the law in Uganda which decision has not been challenged.

He further relied on section 8 (13) of the Advocates (Amendment) Act which requires Law Council to issue the applicant with a certificate of eligibility to enroll without subjecting him with any further study or examination. He further relied on Rule 10 (b) of the Advocates (Professional Requirements of Admission to Post Graduate Bar Course) Legal Notice No. 17 of 2007 and stated that Article 11 of the Protocol and \modes (1), (2) and (4) on explanation of modes provides for automatic mutual recognition of academic, professional qualifications and certifications from institutions of Rwanda in Uganda effective 2015. These provisions are to the effect that a post graduate diploma from the Republic of Rwanda is automatically recognised in Uganda for enrolment of the applicant as though it was from the Law Development Centre and where the applicant is already enrolled an advocate in Rwanda, his practicing certificate is automatically recognised in Uganda. He submitted that the applicant possesses all the academic and professional qualifications required to be issued with the certificate of eligibility by the Law Council for purposes of being admitted to the roll of advocates under with or without first enrolling elsewhere and as such, the decision to deny him the certificate of eligibility was not justified.

He further submitted that under Regulation 3, Part 1 (2) and (3) of the 1st Schedule of the Advocates Enrolment and Certification Regulations, the applicant's legal education qualifications are recognised for purposes of enrolling him under section 8 (1) and 8 (8) (a) of the Advocates (Amendment) 2002 Act. Counsel further submitted that the Solicitors Regulatory Authority lists the Republic of Rwanda as one of the countries whose lawyers qualify for enrolment as solicitors or advocates in England.

Counsel also submitted that under Part II (4) of the 1st schedule of Regulation 3 of the Advocates Enrolment and Certification Regulations, the applicant qualifies to be issued with a certificate of eligibility to enrol in Uganda since his post graduate diploma is from Rwanda a country with reciprocal arrangement in force in Uganda. He stated that Rwanda and Uganda have a reciprocal arrangement under Articles 126 (1), (2), 151 (1) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, Articles 11 of Protocol and modes 1, 2 and 4 of the Annex v under which Rwanda and Uganda mutually recognise each other's academic professional qualification and certifications. He therefore submitted that the applicant's qualifications being from Rwanda, a country with reciprocal arrangement with Uganda meet the requirements for issuance of a certificate of eligibility by the Law Council for purposes of enrolment in Uganda.

Counsel further submitted that being a Ugandan holding qualifications that would qualify him to be enrolled in Tanzania and England, countries operating common law qualifies him to be enrolled on the roll of advocates in Uganda under section 8 (8) (b)(iii) of the Advocates (Amendment) Act. He stated that the applicant is an advocate of the high court of Rwanda and as such qualifies to be enrolled as an advocate in Tanzania as well as a solicitor and barrister in England, the source of common law and common law countries designated by Law Council.

Counsel submitted that the applicant qualifies to be enrolled on the roll of advocates under the Treaty establishing the East African Community and Protocol on Establishment of East African Common Market, Annex v and Schedule on Commitment of Progressive Liberation of services since the post graduate diploma awarded by Rwanda's Institute of Legal Practice and

Development is equivalent to that awarded by Law Development Centre and Law Council is obligated to recognise the same for purposes of issuing a certificate of eligibility to the applicant as envisaged by the treaty where Rwanda is a member of the Common Wealth and East Africa Community where one of the conditions precedent for joining was adaptation of common wealth traditions which include a common law legal system and legal education system respectively.

It was submitted that Rwanda harmonised all its laws and legal education system with other common law countries for purposes of mutual recognition of each country's academic qualifications, professional qualifications and automatic recognition of advocates practising certificate issued by each country without any restrictions under Articles 126 (1), (2) of the Treaty, Article 11 of the Protocol and annex v modes 1, 2, 4 at page 32 and 110. He stated that Article 29 of the Constitution of Rwanda provides that every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty by competent court contrary to civil law system where a person is presumed guilty until proved innocent. He also stated that the evidence law provides that he who alleges must prove.

The applicant submitted that Rwanda's legal system is the same as Uganda's as can be discerned from the case of *Thunderbolt Technical Services Ltd vs Absolute Energy Rwanda, Kigali International Arbitration Centre No. 2018- 2019/ 110* where the arbitral tribunal in Rwanda relied on the Uganda High Court decisions in *John Sekaziga & Anor vs Church Commissioners Holdings Ltd* where the applicant in this matter was counsel for the claimant while two Ugandan Advocates, Asiimwe Raymond and Martin Rugambya Asingwire represented the respondent as its legal counsel without any restriction while holding only Uganda practicing certificates. He therefore invited court to take judicial notice of the said advocates. He further invited court to take judicial notice under section 55, 56 (1) and (k) of the Evidence Act of counsel Peter Kabatsi, a former solicitor general of Ugandan and a senior partner of Kampala Associated Advocates who was enrolled as an advocate of High Court of Rwanda in 2014 with only Uganda qualifications.

Counsel submitted that the Rwanda's Institute of Legal Practice and Development (ILPD) posted the applicant while pursuing the said diploma to do his clerkship at M/s Tumwebaze Atugonza Kobusingye & Co. Advocates in Kampala as a requirement for him to pass the bar course. He therefore submitted that all these are to the effect that the legal and education system of Rwanda is harmonised and the same with that of Uganda and as such, the decision barring the applicant being issued with the certificate of eligibility in the circumstances is illegal, irregular and irrational. He therefore prayed that the court finds that applicant qualifies to be issued with the certificate of eligibility to be enrolled as an advocate in Uganda without being subjected to any further study or examination in Uganda.

Counsel for the respondent relied on the case of *Bataamwe Andrew vs Attorney General HCMC No. 280 of 2019* where the applicant was a holder of a bachelor of Laws from Islamic University, Kampala and diploma in practice from the Institute of Legal Practice and Development Rwanda and applied to Law Council for certificate of eligibility and his application was rejected. The court in his application for judicial review observed that the applicant was not covered under s. 8 (9) of the Act as he was not practicing in a foreign jurisdiction from and that Rwanda where the applicant obtained his Post graduate diploma in Legal practice is not a common law jurisdiction. It was submitted that in the same vein, the Law Council was justified in denying the applicant a certificate of eligibility because he obtained his diploma in Rwanda which is not a common law jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that the respondent relies on the affidavit of Prof. Ssempebwa Edward Fredrick under paragraphs 7 and 8.

Counsel further submitted that the actions by National Council for Higher Education to equate the Rwanda Bar Course to the Post Graduate Diploma of Law Development Centre was ultravires. He stated that the National Council for Higher education has no powers to designate a country as one which operates common law and that such power is vested in the Law Council. He further submitted that the post graduate the applicant holds does not favour him to practice under the common law system.

Counsel submitted that the mandate to regulate the legal profession is only vested with the Law Council and no other body. He relied on the case of *Uganda Revenue Authority vs Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd & Anor SCCA No. 12 of 2004* where on the original jurisdiction of the High Court to hear tax matter, the court held that the understanding of Article 139 (1) of the Constitution is that the High court exercises its unlimited jurisdiction subject to other provisions. That in the instant case, Article 210 of the Constitution empowers parliament to make laws regulating advocates whereupon the Advocates Act as amended was enacted.

He cited section 6A of the Act which established the Law Council and that section 6C (1a) stated that the function of the Committee is to serve as the medium of the Law Council in exercising general supervision and control over professional legal education in Uganda. Counsel further cited section 5 (k) of the Universities and Tertiary Instructions Act which empowers the National Council of Education to determine the equivalence of all types of academic and professional qualifications of degrees, diplomas and certificates obtained elsewhere with those awarded by Uganda institutions of higher education for recognition in Uganda. He stated that parliament in its wisdom mandated the Law Council to be the primary and only body to specifically regulate the legal profession.

Counsel also submitted that the various laws cited in the applicant's submissions for instance the Treaty the establishment of the East African Community, The Protocol on Establishment of The East African Common Market are irrelevant are inapplicable in the light of the specific laws cited above. He further submitted that the Mutual Recognition Agreement of the East African Community is pending approval. The agreement which is supposed to operationalize training and practice of the legal profession in East African Community is yet to be approved and executed and thus, the laws of each East African country should take precedence and, in this case, the Advocates Act.

Counsel further submitted that the case of *Katungi Tony vs Attorney General MC 204 of 2017* relied upon by the applicant does not apply to the circumstances in the present case. He further submitted that the use of section 8 (8) (c) and (d) of the Advocates Act relied upon by the Law Council in its decision was a clerical error which did not prejudice the applicant and that the correct provision which was relied upon and applies to the applicant is section 8 (8) (b) (iii) of the Advocates (Amendment) Act and is reflected in the letter dated 28/7/2017 from Law Council.

Counsel therefore prayed that this Court finds that the Law Council acted in accordance with the law and was justified in denying the applicant a certificate of eligibility.

## **Analysis**

The Advocates Act (as amended) and Regulations thereunder were enacted to provide for the regulation of advocates and the legal profession. *Section 2* of the Act, established the Law Council with the mandate to exercise, through the medium of the committee on legal education and training, general supervision and control over professional legal education in Uganda including continuing legal education for persons qualified to practise law in Uganda. The Committee is mandated under *section 10* to prescribe the professional requirements for admission to the post graduate bar course and qualifications necessary for eligibility for enrolment of an advocate.

The applicant's contention that is that he is a fit and proper person to be issued a certificate of eligibility for Enrolment as an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda and all Courts subordinate thereto having fulfilled all statutory requirements under the Advocates (Amendment) Act. The Advocates Act (as amended) provides for admission and enrolment of advocates under Section 13 which states as follows;

## *Admission and enrolment of advocates*

*(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person to whom this section applies shall be eligible to have his or her name entered on the Roll.* - *(2) A person eligible to have his or her name entered on the Roll may make application to the Law Council, and the Law Council, if satisfied that the applicant is so eligible and is a fit and proper person to be an advocate, shall, unless cause to the contrary is shown to its satisfaction, direct the Registrar, on receipt of the prescribed fee, to enter the applicant's name on the Roll, and the Registrar shall comply with the direction.* - *(3) …………………………..* - *(4) …………………………..* - *(5) ……………………………..* - *(6) ………………………………..* - *(7) ……………………………….* - *(8) This section applies to a person who-* - *a) is the holder of a degree in law granted by a university in Uganda; or* - *b) is a Uganda citizen and* - *i) a holder of a degree in law obtained from a university or other institution recognised by the Law Council in a country operating the common law system;* - *ii) has been enrolled as a legal practitioner by whatever name called, in any country operating the common law system and designated by the Law Council by regulations; or* - *iii) holds a qualification that would qualify him or her to be enrolled in any country operating the common law system and designated by the Law Council by regulations.*

- (9) *In the case of a person to whom subsection (8) applies, being a person who has not practised for a minimum period of one year, that person shall not be eligible to have his or her name entered on the Roll unless he or she has complied with such requirements, whether relating to instruction, examination or otherwise, as to the acquisition of professional skill and experience, as may be specified in regulations made by the Law Council.* - *(10)In the case of a person to whom subsection (8)(b)(ii) applies, being a person who has practiced as a legal practitioner for one year or more, but less than five years, that person is not eligible for enrolment under this section unless he or she works under the surveillance of and in chambers approved by the Law Council for that purpose or he or she serves as a state attorney for at least one year.* - *(11)In the case of a person to whom subsection (8)(b) (i1) applies,* being a person who has practised as a legal practitioner for five years or more, *that person may be enrolled without having to work in chambers approved by the Law Council for that purpose or serving as a state attorney.*

It is the applicant's evidence that the Law Council unlawfully rejected his application for the certificate of eligibility yet he is a holder of a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Uganda Christian University and Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Training from Rwanda Law School (Institute of Legal Practise and Development) obtained in 2011 and 2016 respectively.

As stated above, *section 13 of the Advocates Act* mandates the Law Council to issue certificate of eligibility to a holder of a degree in law granted by a university in Uganda which, the applicant holds. However, the applicant was enrolled as a legal practitioner in the Republic of Rwanda which country has not been designated by regulations by the Law Council as required by the Advocates Act for purposes of admission and enrolment of advocates.

The applicant submitted that in 2009, the Republic of Rwanda was admitted as a member of Common Wealth States and as such, harmonised all its laws and legal education system with other common law countries for purposes of mutual recognition of each country's academic qualifications, professional qualifications and automatic recognition of advocates practising certificate issued by each country without any restrictions under Articles 126 (1), (2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.

*Article 126 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community* provides as follows;

- *1. In order to promote the achievement of the objectives of the Community as set out in Article 5 of this Treaty, the Partner States shall take steps to harmonise their legal training and certification; and shall encourage the standardisation of the judgements of courts within the Community.* - *2. For purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Partner States shall through their appropriate national institutions take all necessary steps to:* - *a) establish a common syllabus for the training of lawyers and a common standard to be attained in examinations in order to qualify and to be licensed to practice as an advocate in their respective superior courts;* - *b) harmonise all their national laws appertaining to the Community; and*

*c) revive the publication of the East African Law Reports or publish similar law reports and such law journals as will promote the exchange of legal and judicial knowledge and enhance the approximation and harmonisation of legal learning and the standardisation of judgements of courts within the Community.*

I do take cognizance of these provisions of the treaty and this court in the case of *Katungi Tony vs Attorney General Misc. Cause No. 204 of 2017* considered this provision in respect of Uganda as a Partner State enjoined to harmonize the national laws in respect of the legal profession. Uganda as a member country signed the East African Community Common Market Protocol (EAC CMP) and undertook to provide free legal practice by 2015.

*Section 13 and 18 of the Advocates Act* shows the spirit of law in regards to objectives of the Community under the Treaty. I further take judicial notice that Rwanda now has a hybrid legal system where; it has a civil law history but is making efforts to move toward a common-law system. As such, the applicant's argument that Rwanda having been admitted to the Common Wealth States gives him the automatic right for admission and enrolment as advocate in Uganda is misconceived.

The Law Council is vested with powers to designate the Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Training from Rwanda Law School (Institute of Legal Practise and Development) as being equivalent to that awarded by Law Development Center for purposes of admission and enrolment of advocates. This duty of the Law Council cannot be underscored in the circumstances considering that the Rwanda is now operating a hybrid legal system with efforts to shift to the common law

legal system. This is not the mandate of the National Council for Higher Education and as such, its decision given in the circumstances is invalid. The submission of counsel for the applicant that the certificate of equivalence of the post graduate diploma in legal practice being recognised and equated to the one awarded by Law Development Centre by the National Council for Higher Education being the only competent and mandated entity under the law in Uganda is not backed by the law.

The respondent's decision rejecting the applicant's application was therefore based on the law. The applicant cannot fault the Law Council for applying the law as it is without challenging the law. The applicant does not meet the requirements provided for under the Advocates Act

I have had the opportunity of reading the decision in *Katungi Tony vs Attorney General (supra)* relied upon by the applicant and I find the same distinguishable from the facts before this court. The applicant therein having studied his law degree in Uganda at Uganda Christian University later joined the law school of Kenya where he qualified as an advocate entitled to practise as such in 2013. The applicant in that case was under the ambit of section 8 of the Advocates Act (as it then was) since a Ugandan who has obtained a law degree from Uganda but opts to study the bar course in another law school in a common law jurisdiction, and is enrolled in that jurisdiction, would be entitled to be enrolled on the same grounds as a Ugandan who obtained qualification from Uganda and qualified from Law Development Centre provided he complies with section 8 (now section 13) of the Advocates Act as amended.

Based on all the above, I find that the Law Council was justified in denying the applicant a certificate of eligibility to the applicant. This issue is therefore resolved in the affirmative.

## **2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought?**

The applicant submitted that the decision of the Law Council was arbitrary, illegal and unfair to the extent that it has visited financial loss, emotional and phycological injury to the applicant for which he prayed for general damages of Ugx. 300,000,000/= at 20% interest per annum.

Having found that the Law Council was justified in denying the applicant a certificate of eligibility, I decline to award any general damages to the applicant in the circumstances.

This application is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

I so Order.

*SSEKAANA MUSA JUDGE 14th February 2025*