High Court Finds the Disqualification of Nattabi Margaret from the Makerere University Students’ Guild Election Unlawful for Breach of Natural Justice and the Right to a Fair Hearing

FACTS

Nattabi Margaret, the Applicant, applied and was successfully nominated as a candidate for the 89th Guild Presidential elections at Makerere University on 31st March 2023. On 4th April 2023, she was invited by the Mitchell Hall Students’ Common Room to participate in a panel discussion on 5th April 2023, as is customary prior to guild elections, to update students on the prospects of renovating hall infrastructure.

The Applicant attended and addressed students on 5th April 2023 without interruption and in adherence to University Guidelines on social events. However, on 6th April 2023, she was disqualified from the guild presidential race via a letter authored by Levi Tshilumba (First Respondent), the Chairperson of the 89th Electoral Commission. The letter was circulated on social media but was never personally served on her.

The disqualification letter stated that the Applicant and another aspirant, Namwoza Sulaiman, held a “kimeza” (panel discussion) at Mitchell Hall on 5th April 2023, which resulted in a scuffle during which a student, Sserunjogi Robert, was beaten and severely injured.

The reason given for the disqualification was that this action violated section 10(b) of the Makerere University Students’ Guild Statute 2022 and article 67(1)(b) of the Students’ Guild Constitution 2022, which require that elections shall be virtual unless otherwise determined by the University Council.

The Applicant was disqualified without a hearing. She attempted to petition the Guild Tribunal but was informed that it lacked jurisdiction and was referred to the Guild Election Petition Tribunal, which only operates after elections have been held.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the application was amenable to judicial review.

2. Whether the Applicant was granted a fair hearing prior to being disqualified.

3. What remedies were available to the parties.

   
   

SUBMISSIONS

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

Ms. Nattabi had petitioned the High Court seeking judicial review of a decision by the 89th Guild Electoral Commission, chaired by Mr. Levi Tshilumba, which barred her from contesting in the April 2023 guild elections. She argued that the decision was made without giving her a hearing and was communicated through a letter circulating on social media rather than being formally served upon her.

Court heard that Ms. Nattabi had been duly nominated as a candidate on 31 March 2023. She later attended a panel discussion at Mitchell Hall on 5 April 2023 following an invitation by the hall’s Students’ Common Room.

The Electoral Commission subsequently accused her of participating in an unauthorized physical campaign activity, contrary to guild laws requiring elections to be conducted virtually.

Represented by JByamukama & Co. Advocates, the applicant contended that her appearance at Mitchell Hall was customary, lawful, and conducted in compliance with university guidelines. She further told court that she was never summoned or given an opportunity to defend herself before being disqualified.

Ms Nattabi challenged the affidavit of Yusuf Kiranda (University Secretary) as lacking authorization to represent the first respondent

.

RESPONDENT'S POSITION

The respondents argued that Virtual elections were mandated to prevent violence following a 2002 incident where a student was murdered during the 88th Guild elections, and all candidates were briefed on electoral rules after nominations.

Nattabi participated in an unauthorized debate where a fight occurred, resulting in injuries, after which Nattabi was summoned, and her explanation was unsatisfactory.

They also argued that appeal mechanisms existed through the Dean of Students, Vice Chancellor, and the University Council.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

1. Applicant M/s J. Byamukama & Co. Advocates

2. Respondents M/s Makerere University Directorate of Legal Affairs

COURT’S FINDINGS

Amenability to Judicial Review

The Court held that the application was amenable to judicial review. It found that Makerere University is a public body within the meaning of rule 3 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules, 2019, and that the Electoral Commission, acting through its Chairperson, was exercising a public function subject to judicial review.

The Court stated:

“Owing to the fact that the decision to disqualify the applicant as a guild candidate was undertaken by the Electoral Commission which is charged with a mandate from Makerere University to preside over the said elections, and the communication was authored by Levi Tshilumba, the Chairperson, 89th Electoral Commission, Makerere University, in his capacity as a public official acting on behalf of the Electoral Commission, means the decision was made by Makerere University, a public body which is subject to Judicial Review.”

On exhaustion of remedies, the Court noted that when the Applicant petitioned the Guild Tribunal, she was informed that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court found that article 80(5) of the Guild Constitution only allows petitions post-election and does not provide for pre-election complaints. The Respondents failed to cite any legal provision supporting their claim of alternative remedies through the Dean of Students, Vice Chancellor, or University Council.

The Court held:

“As such, the applicant cannot be penalised for not exhausting available remedies prior to coming to court.”

Violation of Fair Hearing

The Court examined whether the Applicant was accorded a fair hearing prior to disqualification. It reiterated that judicial review scrutinises the decision-making process rather than the correctness of the decision itself.

The Court cited Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1983] 3 All ER 143:

“Judicial review is intended to protect individuals from abuse of power by authorities, both judicial and quasi-judicial, but it is not intended to take away from those authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law and to substitute the courts as the bodies making the decisions.”

The Court found that although the Respondents claimed that the Applicant was summoned to present her defence, there was no evidence to support this assertion. The suspension letters attached to the Respondents’ reply were addressed to other students, Byaruhanga Isaac and Muganga Arnold, and not to the Applicant. There was no letter addressed to the Applicant and no minutes of any meeting in which she was heard.

The Court held:

“This means that Nattabi was never given an opportunity to be heard prior to her disqualification.”

Illegality, Irrationality, and Procedural Impropriety

The Court concluded:

“In the premises, I find that the respondents’ decision to disqualify the applicant from the guild presidential elections was tainted with illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, and as such, the impugned decision violated the rules and principles of natural justice.”

HOLDING

1. The Court found that the application was amenable to judicial review as it involved a public body making an administrative decision.

2.  The disqualification was tainted with illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The Applicant was never given an opportunity to be heard before being disqualified.

4. The Court awarded general damages of UGX 2,000,000/= to the Applicant for the inconvenience suffered, noting that quashing the election results would be impractical since the elections had already been held and the application was overtaken by events.

5. The Applicant was awarded costs of the application.

Read the full case

Nattabi Margaret v Levi Tshilumba and Another 2026 UGHCCD 30 (6 February 2026).pdf

Download PDF • 298KB

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Right to Fair Hearing Is Fundamental

Administrative bodies, including university electoral commissions, must observe the principles of natural justice. Any person facing adverse administrative action must be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. Failure to do so renders the decision unlawful, regardless of whether the person may have violated the rules.

Burden of Proof on Administrative Bodies

Where an administrative body asserts that due process was followed, it must adduce evidence to support that claim. In this case, the Respondents’ assertion that the Applicant was summoned and heard failed due to lack of documentary proof.

Judicial Review Focuses on Process, Not Substance

Judicial review is concerned with the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not with the merits of the decision itself.

Exhaustion of Remedies Not Required Where None Exist

An applicant cannot be penalised for failing to exhaust remedies that do not exist or are unavailable. Administrative bodies must cite the legal basis for any alleged alternative remedies.

Public Bodies Subject to Judicial Review

Public universities and their organs, including student electoral commissions, exercise public power and are subject to judicial review.

Practical Remedies Where Events Have Overtaken the Application

Where events have overtaken an application, such as elections being concluded before determination, courts may award damages rather than grant impractical reliefs such as quashing election results.

Importance of Proper Documentation

Administrative bodies must maintain proper records, including summons letters, minutes of hearings, and formal communications. Failure to do so may be fatal to defending administrative decisions.

Drafted by

Harmony Ritah Owomugisha

A Student of Law Year 2

Uganda Pentecostal University

This legal alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal advice, consult a qualified legal practitioner.