Access to Public Documents Requires Strict Adherence to Statutory Procedure: High Court Reaffirms It Is Not the Court of First Instance

High Court Dismisses Application to Access Succession Register for Want of Jurisdiction and Procedural Irregularities

Brief of In the matter of an application for access to information by Kibunga Godfrey (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 361 (21 May 2025)

Area of Law: Civil Procedure- Access to Information, Data Privacy

The High Court has dismissed an application brought under section 33 of the Judicature Act, section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 52 rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking access to documents contained in Succession Register No. 4B/69.

The applicant, a grandchild of the late Lazaro Lubuto Kyoto, argued that the will deposited with the Administrator General’s office had become a public document and could be accessed under Article 41 of the Constitution of Uganda.

Key Legal Issues.

1. Whether the will in Succession Register No. 4B/69 is a public document.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to access the said documents.

   
   

Court’s Analysis and Findings.

1. Public Nature of the Will

   The Court agreed that although a will is inherently a private document, once deposited with a public office like the Administrator General's office, it becomes a public document within the meaning of section 73(b) of the Evidence Act.

2. Right of Access to Information

   While the Court acknowledged Article 41 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Access to Information Act, it emphasized that access to such information is governed by clear procedures set out in the Act. These include submitting a formal written request to the relevant information officer and, where access is denied, appealing first to the Chief Magistrate's Court under section 36 of the Access to Information Act.

3. Jurisdictional Error

   The High Court found the application prematurely filed. There was no evidence that the Administrator General, as the information officer, had denied access, nor was there any appeal lodged with the Chief Magistrate’s Court as required. The Court held that it could not act as a court of first instance in such matters given its appellate role under the Access to Information Act, citing URA v Rabbo Enterprises Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004.

4. Privacy Concerns

   The Court noted that even though the will became a public document, its contents are subject to the Data Protection and Privacy Act. The applicant had not demonstrated consent from the estate's administrator or next of kin, and thus failed to meet the privacy safeguards required when accessing such sensitive information.

   
   

Key Holding: The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities. The Court emphasized that access to information from public offices must adhere strictly to the procedures and safeguards under the Access to Information Act and the Data Protection and Privacy Act. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs.

⚖️ Key Takeaways:

1. Wills Deposited with Public Bodies Become Public Documents

   • Although a will is initially a private document, it becomes a public document once deposited with a public body like the Administrator General under Section 73(b) of the Evidence Act.

2. Access to Public Documents Must Follow Statutory Procedure

   • The Access to Information Act prescribes a mandatory procedure for accessing public information, including filing a written request with the information officer and, if denied, appealing to the Chief Magistrate’s Court.

3. High Court Has Only Appellate Jurisdiction Under the Access to Information Act

   • The High Court cannot act as a court of first instance in disputes over access to public information. First recourse must be through the Chief Magistrate’s Court under Sections 36 and 37 of the Access to Information Act.

4. Jurisdictional Limits Cannot Be Circumvented by Invoking General Powers

   • Even though the High Court has inherent and unlimited jurisdiction under the Judicature Act, where Parliament has provided a specific procedural path (as under the Access to Information Act), that pathway must be followed.

5. Right to Access Information Must Be Balanced with Privacy Protections

   • Access to information, even if deemed public, must comply with the Data Protection and Privacy Act. Applicants must demonstrate that disclosure does not violate the privacy of living persons or the dignity of the deceased’s estate.

6. Applicant Must Provide Evidence of Refusal Before Court Action

   • It is not enough to allege refusal; a party seeking judicial intervention must prove that the information officer (e.g., the Administrator General) made a formal decision refusing access.

     
     

📜 Rule of Law Principles Established

1. Legality and Procedural Compliance

   • Courts reinforced that access to rights and remedies must be pursued through the procedures established by law. Statutory processes cannot be bypassed by invoking general equitable jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction Must Be Properly Invoked

   • A party must first exhaust remedies in the competent forum before approaching the High Court. This protects the hierarchical structure of adjudication and the integrity of lower courts.

3. Substantive and Procedural Fairness

   • The decision underscores the importance of both substantive entitlement (right to access information) and procedural fairness (following lawful steps and timelines).

4. Balancing of Competing Rights

   • The court highlighted the need to balance the right of access to information with the right to privacy, especially under Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act—a key expression of proportionality in the rule of law.

5. Transparency and Accountability of Public Offices

   • While confirming that public offices hold documents in trust for the citizenry, the court also stressed that such transparency must be structured and responsible.