Last updated on August 16th, 2024 at 10:31 am
Main Topic: Judicial Review
Date of Judgment: 10 June 2024
Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division)
Case Number/Citation: Miscellaneous Cause No. 159 of 2023, 2024 UGHCCD 98
Judge: Justice Boniface Wamala
Summary of the Facts
Kintu Philly, trading as Genesis Drug Shop, challenged the decision of the National Drug Authority (NDA) refusing to grant him a license to relocate his drug shop from Kitebi, Mutundwe to Najjanankumbi, Kiwanuka Road, Rubaga Division.
Philly claimed the rejection was illegal, irrational, and discriminatory. He argued that the Authority had misapplied the provisions of Regulations 9(1) and 30A of the National Drug Policy and Authority (Licensing) Regulations 2014 for they apply to the location of drug sellers and not relocation.
According to him, the decision of the National Drug Authority was also discriminatory because there are other pharmacies or drug shops in the area he wanted to relocate his business.
He also argued that the regulations were unconstitutional and violated his rights to a fair hearing and to practice his profession.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether the application raised grounds for Judicial Review?
The decision of the Court
The High Court ruled in favor of the Respondent, National Drug Authority, determining that the application for judicial review was misplaced in parts where the Applicant claimed violation of constitutional rights or purported to raise issues for constitutional interpretation.
The Court expunged these parts from the record reasoning that it does not have jurisdiction to hear questions of enforcement of constitutional rights or interpretation of the Constitution in an application for Judicial Review.
Constitutional interpretation is a preserve of the Constitutional Court.
After severing the constitutional claims, the court further dismissed the applicant’s claims against the National Drug Authority that its decision to reject his applications to relocate his drug shop was illegal, irrational, and procedural improper as per the law on Judicial Review.
The Court found that the Authority had the legal power to decide the way it did and its decision was, therefore, intra vires (within the law) and nothing was illegal about it.
As regards irrationality, the Court upheld the decision of the Authority to reject the applicant’s application to relocate on the ground that he did not have a valid license as a legitimate exercise of regulatory authority.
And in respect to procedural impropriety, the Court held that this relates to adherence by the decision-making body in this case the authority to the rules and principles of natural Justice.
The court found that the respondent had endeavored to respond to every application for relocation by the Applicant and therefore procedural impropriety was not proved.
Justice Boniface Wamala reasoned that in Judicial Review, the court is focused on the decision-making process of a public body rather than the decision itself and therefore should not examine the decision beyond the process of reaching it as that would be tantamount to the Court replacing the decision of the body with Court’s.
Key Quote: “During the exercise of its power of judicial review, the court should not adopt an approach that indicates that if it were in the place of the public body, it would have made a different decision. The court is only capable of adopting that approach on appeal and not in the exercise of its supervisory function over the powers of public bodies. As such, provided the Respondent acted within the boundaries of its authority, their construction and application of the relevant regulations cannot be impeached by way of judicial review.” – Justice Boniface Wamala.
Law Applied By the Court:
- Rule 7A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules, 2019: The court to grant orders for Judicial Review where satisfied the public body did not follow due process and as a result, the decision was unfair or unjust.
- Dr. Lam – Lagoro James v Muni University, HCMA No. 007 of 2016: Definition of the illegality of a decision in Judicial Review – the Public body must not have legal power to make the decision in question; Definition of procedural impropriety – decision-making process did not adhere to rules of fairness and natural justice.
- Council for Civil Service Union v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374 ALLER 935: Definition of Irrationality – the decision made defeats logic, it is outrageous, etc.
Counsel on Record
- For the Applicant: Mr. Alex Asiimwe of M/s Volens Advocates
- For the Respondent: Mr. Esau Isingoma of M/s K&K Advocates
Conclusion
This case clarifies the limits of judicial review. It emphasizes the need for judicial review applications to focus on the process of decision-making by public authorities rather than the merits of the decisions themselves.