Case Title: Proline Soccer Academy Ltd v Lawrence Mulindwa & 4 Others
Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala, Civil Division
Case Number: HCT-00-CV-MA-0459-2009
Date of Decision: 18 September 2009
Judge: Hon. Mr. Justice Yorokamu Bamwine
Topics: Judicial Review, Cause of Action, Validity of Memorandum of Understanding, Competence of the Applicant, Sports Law, Football Governance.
Background and Relevant Facts:
Proline Soccer Academy Ltd, the applicant, filed an application against Lawrence Mulindwa and others, seeking judicial review and injunctive relief. The dispute arose from the disqualification of Nalubaale Football Club from participating in the National Football Super League for the 2009/2010 season by the Federation of Uganda Football Associations (FUFA) allegedly for failing to pay its coaches, etc.
Proline Soccer Academy had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Nalubaale Football Club to take over its rights, which FUFA did not recognize.
Proline sought to quash FUFA’s decision through judicial review and argued that their MoU with Nalubaale gave them the legal right to take over the rights of Pro line Academy.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether the application was amenable to judicial review.
- Whether the applicant had a cause of action.
- Whether the applicant was competent to bring the application.
- Whether the Memorandum of Understanding between Proline and Nalubaale was valid and enforceable against the respondents.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
- Amenability to Judicial Review: The court held that judicial review is appropriate for ensuring that public powers are exercised legally, fairly, and rationally. The court found that the application was amenable to judicial review because the decisions made by FUFA had the potential to affect the rights and obligations of the parties involved. The court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. The Court further ruled that unincorporated public bodies ie that can’t sue or be sued in their name are amenable to judicial review.
- Cause of Action: The court analyzed whether Proline had a legally recognized interest that could be protected by law. It was determined that the applicant’s case was fundamentally flawed due to the lack of a registered deed of assignment (the MoU), which was necessary to establish a legal right on which to found its action. The court scrutinized the MoU between Proline and Nalubaale and concluded that since the MoU was not stamped as an instrument chargeable of stamp duty, it was inadmissible as evidence in a court of law and could not be relied upon to establish a cause of action against the respondents. The court cited relevant case law, affirming that an unstamped instrument cannot form the basis of legal claims beyond the parties to that instrument. As a result, the applicant lacked a cause of action against the respondents. The court emphasized that a cause of action must disclose that the plaintiff enjoyed a right that has been violated and that the defendant is liable for this violation. In this case, the unregistered MoU was insufficient to establish such a right.
- Competence of the Applicant: The court examined whether Proline Soccer Academy was competent to bring the application for judicial review. It found that the applicant possessed the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge FUFA’s decision which had been made specifically against Nalubale Football club because the applicant alleged a take-over of rights of Nalubale Football club and that would mean that they have “sufficient” interest, however small, in FUFA’s decision.
- Service of Summons: The court also addressed the issue of the service of summons. The argument raised by Mr. Kiryowa Kiwanuka on behalf of the respondents was that service was not properly effected upon the respondents themselves but rather on one Sharon Nalunga, who was the Personal Secretary to the first respondent, Lawrence Mulindwa. The court acknowledged that, ideally, the service should have been on the respondents themselves. However, the court also emphasized that procedural errors in service should not automatically nullify the proceedings unless such errors are of a fundamental nature that affects the jurisdiction of the Court or causes prejudice to the opposite party. In this instance, since the respondents were present in court and there was no indication that the method of service had caused any prejudice, the court did not consider the service of summons to be a nullity.
- Procedure adopted by the Applicant: Another issue was raised by the respondents regarding the procedure adopted by the applicant. The respondents argued that the applicant had used the wrong procedure by filing the application by Chamber Summons instead of Notice of Motion under Rule Rule 6 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009. The court noted that although the rules stipulate that an application for judicial review should be made by notice of motion, they do not stipulate the mode where however, the applicant has filed the application by chamber summons, under Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Rules for applications related to injunctions based on breach of contract claims. The court found that the procedure adopted by the applicant, although different, was not in violation of the Judicial review rules because the rules do not state that a notice of motion is the only mode of procedure.
Decision of the Court:
- The application for judicial review and injuctive relief was dismissed due to the lack of a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi (Holding): The court held that for a judicial review application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate a clear legal right or interest (cause of action). In this case, the lack of a registered and stamped MoU meant that the applicant did not have a sufficient legal basis to challenge FUFA’s decisions. Additionally, an application by a person with sufficient interest, however small, in a decision of a public body, is amenable for judicial review
Law Applied:
- Judicature Act, Cap. 13: Governs judicial review in Uganda.
- Stamps Act, Cap. 342: Section 42 Requires certain documents to be stamped to be admissible in court.
- Auto Garage & Others v Motokov [1971] EA 514: Defines the elements necessary to establish a cause of action.
- Kafeero v Turyagyenda [1980] HCB 122: Discusses the inadmissibility of unstamped documents.
- Yokoyada Kagwa vs Mary Kiwanuka & Anor [1979] HCB 23: Stamp duty requirement.
- John Jet Tumwebaze vs Makerere University Council & Others H.C Civil Application No. 353 of 2005: Unincorporated bodies can be sued in judicial review.
- Boyes vs Gathure [1969] E. A. 385; Mere adoption of a wrong procedure does not invalidate the proceedings.
Quote: “In the absence of a duly registered deed of assignment/Memorandum of Understanding, or even either Company’s resolution to that effect duly executed, it appears to me that the applicant is at the wrong end of the law. It has not demonstrated any such legally protected interest in the respondent’s affairs and therefore lacks a cause of action against them. In the result, I find that the applicant’s application is fundamentally flawed on account of being non-compliant with the relevant laws. Although it has demonstrated a sufficient interest in the affairs of Nalubaale Football Club, the application must fail on account of non-disclosure of a sufficient or at all cause of action against the respondents jointly or severally.” – Justice Yorokamu Bamwiine.
Counsel for the Parties:
- Applicant: M/s Kaggwa Sempala Mukasa Obonyo (KSMO) Advocates.
- Respondents: M/s Kiwanuka & Karugire Advocates.
