What court ruling means for disgruntled UJA members Lubowa Abubaker and others

The High Court judgement made by Justice Musa Ssekaana cleared the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA) and a group of disgruntled members led by Daily Monitor photographer Abubaker Lubowa. #UgandaNews #News #WhisperEyeNews

Mr Lubowa and others failed to meet the minimum requirements to contest for UJA executive committee positions. The UJA elections committee disqualified them after failing to pay membership subscription fees for at least two years before elections, thus petitioning the High Court Kampala to take action.

Unfortunately, the Court ruled in favor of UJA, maintaining their disqualification. The High Court ruling means that Mr Lubowa Abubaker will not be able to contest for any UJA position for failing to meet the minimum requirements set by the UJA AGM.

Abubaker Lubowa, Zambali Bulasio Mukasa, Emmanuel Nkata, Hasifu Sekiwunga and Martin Kimbowa were the applicants whereas Uganda Journalist Association (UJA), Mathias Rukundo, and Emmanuel Kirunda were the respondents.

In his solomonic judgement, Justice Musa Ssekaana ruled that; “The court has duty to establish whether the matter brought before it involves a public body. Section 7A Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 provides for factors to consider in handling applications for judicial review; The court shall, in considering an application for judicial review, satisfy itself: that the matter involves an administrative public body of official.

The 1st respondent is not a public body and does not derive their powers from any written law apart from the incorporation under the companies Act. The court cannot open the doors for all manner of bodies to make applications for judicial review as this will increase the case load and yet the judges are few.

The court should be mindful of the judicial review case load in deciding whether a class of body is susceptible to judicial review, otherwise it would be a misapplication of scarce judicial resources. See Ex p. Football League Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 833 at 849. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent is not a public body and cannot be susceptible to judicial review.

The application would fail on this ground alone. It is dismissed with costs to the respondents. The applicants erroneously obtained a temporary injunction against the respondents in conducting their affairs or electing office bearers in accordance with their constitution.

They should compensate the respondents under section 65 of the Civil procedure Act. I so order.” The judgment reads in parts.

The application was dismissed with costs meaning that the applicants must compensate the respondents after the temporary injunction which stopped UJA elections at a time when the respondents had already paid the service providers and materials required for the election process.