Locus Standi and Sufficient Interest in Litigation: A Legal Analysis of Male Mabirizi K. vs. Deputy Speaker of Parliament & Attorney General (Misc Cause 33 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 416.

Overview. In a significant ruling of Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Deputy Speaker of Parliament and Another (Misc Cause 33 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 416 (31 May 2024) the High Court of Uganda at Mbale reaffirmed the doctrine of locus standi and sufficient interest in litigation, reinforcing the courts' commitment to ensuring that only parties with a genuine stake in a matter may seek legal recourse.

Hon. Justice Lubega Farouq upheld the principle that a mere wayfarer or officious intervener lacks standing, whereas an individual with a deeper concern or special interest in the subject matter may access the courts. This decision builds on the precedent set by Justice Musa Ssekaana in Muhumuza Ben v Attorney General of Uganda & 2 Others  (Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 80 (24 June 2021), where the court held that the doors of justice are only open to those with a legitimate interest in the matter, excluding busybodies and curiosity seekers.

Brief Facts. The Applicant, Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka, brought this Application for judicial review by way of a Notice of Motion seeking a declaration that the decision of the Rt. Hon. Deputy Speaker of Parliament made on 12th October 2023, to refer Hon. Zaake Francis Butebi to the Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Discipline over alleged vulgar/defamatory abuse against Hon. Juliet Kinyamatama was illegal, procedurally improper, irrational, and ultra vires to the functions of the Deputy Speaker.

Furthermore, the Applicant also sought various orders from court, which were an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Deputy Speaker, an order of prohibition prohibiting the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline or any committee of parliament from carrying out investigations against Hon. Zaake Francis Butebi over alleged vulgar abuses made against Hon. Juliet Kinyamatama, a permanent injunction restraining the parliamentary Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline, the entire parliament, and any committee from carrying out any investigation against Hon. Zaake Francis Butebi over alleged vulgar abuses made against Hon. Juliet Kinyamatama, general, aggravated, and punitive damages.

Response of the Respondents. In response, the Attorney General raised a preliminary objection, challenging the Applicant's legal standing to bring the action. On the merits of the application, the Attorney General argued that the Deputy Speaker acted in accordance with Rule 91 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure and that Hon Zaake Francis was not entitled to a fair hearing prior to being referred to the Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Immunities. The Attorney General further argued that Hon Zaake Francis would receive a fair hearing from the committee, which would subsequently report back to the House.

The Primary Issue for Determination

1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi or sufficient interest to bring this application?

Legal Representation.

The Applicant was self-represented.

The 1st Respondent was represented by Mr. Simon Peter Waiswa

While the 2nd Respondent was represented Joshua Serugendo, A State Attorney, from the Attorney General's Chambers, Mbale Regional Office.

The Decision.

The learned judge, Hon. Justice Lubega Farouq, resolved to address the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents before proceeding to the merits of the application. The judge focused on the issue of whether the applicant has locus standi or sufficient interest to institute this application.

The court observed that the Applicant, a Ugandan citizen and lawyer, claimed to have sufficient interest in good governance, the rule of law, and free political space in Uganda. However, the Respondents argued that the Applicant lacks direct or sufficient interest to file the application.

The court relied on the principles established by Justice Ssekaana in Muhumuza Ben v Attorney of Uganda & 2 Others, which require a track record of concern and activity in the relevant area, a justiciable issue, a serious issue, genuine interest, and a reasonable setting for litigation. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient interest beyond a general interest shared by all citizens.

Justice Musa Ssekaana held that

The court should attach importance to the applicant's track record of concern and activity related to the government decision-making body under challenge. Standing in judicial review matters should remain a matter of judicial discretion, contingent on various factors identified in that decision. These factors, for the most part, do not prevent worthy public interest cases from being litigated. The court should consider the following: Is there a justiciable issue? Is the applicant raising a serious issue? Does the applicant have a genuine interest in the matter? Is this a reasonable and effective setting for litigating the issues? In any legal system with limited resources, the court must discourage professional litigants and meddlesome interlopers who invoke the court's jurisdiction in matters that do not concern them. To have standing to sustain public action, the applicant must fulfill one of two qualifications: either convince the court that the legal issue has significant public importance, affecting a public right and injuring the public interest, or establish a sufficient personal interest beyond the general interest shared by other members of the public bringing the action.

Any citizen who is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener, lacking any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any other citizen in this country, will find that the door of the court is not open to them. However, if they belong to an organization with a special interest in the subject matter and have a deeper concern than mere curiosity, they may be granted access to the courts, but otherwise, they will be locked out at the gates of the temple of justice

The judge adopted the view that the Applicant is merely a wayfarer or officious intervener, lacking a direct or personal interest in the action. The court emphasized that the purpose of this principle is to ensure that only parties directly and substantially affected can access the courts, preventing unnecessary cases from overloading the judicial system.

In Paragraph 22 of his Ruling, the learned judge stressed that

"as demonstrated by the authorities cited above, a party lacking direct or personal interest in a judicial review action cannot initiate proceedings in the absence of such interest."

The judge further explained that this principle aims to ensure that the courts remain accessible to parties directly and substantially affected, while preventing the overload of unwanted cases.

Additionally, the judge noted that the matter at hand does not strictly qualify as a public interest issue.

Consequently, the trial judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient or direct interest to justify bringing this action against the Respondents, as they are not a member of Parliament and did not provide evidence of being a voter in Hon. Zaake Francis' constituency.

What should have been the right forum for this matter?

While dismissing the application, the court in Paragraph 25 of its ruling was of the view that the grounds of this application arose in parliament situate in Kampala which would therefore imply that the High Court of Uganda at Kampala, Civil Division would have been the most appropriate forum to handle this matter .

Conclusion.

In conclusion, the High Court of Uganda's decision in Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Deputy Speaker of Parliament and Another (Misc Cause 33 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 416 (31 May 2024) reinforces the fundamental principles of locus standi and sufficient interest in litigation. By dismissing the application due to the applicant's lack of direct or personal interest, the court upheld the importance of ensuring that only parties with a genuine stake in a matter may seek legal recourse.

This ruling serves as a significant reminder to potential litigants to carefully consider their standing before invoking the jurisdiction of the courts, and to the courts to remain vigilant in preventing abuse of process and promoting judicial efficiency.

Summarized by Innocent Sabagabo Lawyer and legal internee at The Attorney General's Chambers.

Find full case

Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Deputy Speaker of Parliament and Another (Misc Cause 33 of 2023) 2024 .

Download • 3.62MB

Authorities.

Cases:

1. Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Uganda Revenue Authority, Misc Cause 84 of 2021,

2. Muhumuza Ben v Attorney General of Uganda & 2 Others HCMC No.212 of 2020

3. R v State President & Anor.( None)[2015] MWHC 439 ( 11 January 2015)

Statutes:

1. Judicature ( Judicial Review ) ( Ammendemnet ) Rules 2019

Text Books

1. Halsbury’s Law of England/ Judicial Review Volume 61A (2023)

2. Judicial Review of Administrative Action by De Smith, Woolf and Jowell at Pg 111