High Court Strikes Out Review Application for Lack of Locus Standi, Affirming that a Licence to Operate a School Does Not in Itself Confer Capacity to Sue; the Management Structure Must Follow the Law

Waboga David
Sep 11
2 min read

Background

The first respondent, Mulyanti William, instituted Civil Suit No. 866 of 2021 against the second respondent, Kizza William, seeking eviction, vacant possession, mesne profits, interest, and costs for alleged trespass on land.

He successfully obtained a temporary injunction (Misc. Application No. 1728 of 2021) restraining the second respondent and his agents from utilising the disputed land.

Aggrieved, the applicant, purportedly the Management Committee of St. Vianney Junior School, applied for review under Order 46 and Order 52 CPR, sections 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and section 33 of the Judicature Act.

The applicant sought to set aside the injunction on grounds of:

Error of law apparent on the face of the record;
Lack of fair hearing before issuance of the injunction;
Prejudice to the school’s operations, despite it not being a party to the main suit; and
Orders of the Assistant Registrar allegedly altering the status quo contrary to principles on injunctions.

The 1st respondent opposed the application, raising a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked locus standi as it was not a duly constituted legal entity under the Education Act, 2008 and related regulations.

Issues

The Court considered whether the Management Committee of St. Vianney Junior School had the requisite legal capacity to file the application.

Court’s Reasoning

Under Section 2 and 45(4) of the Education Act, 2008 and the Education (Management Committee) Regulations, every primary school must have a duly constituted Management Committee approved by the District Education Officer (DEO).

Evidence adduced showed that a letter from the DEO, Wakiso confirming that the school had no approved Management Committee on record.

A licence from the Ministry of Education and Sports confirming that the school was authorised to operate (2023–2025).

The Court distinguished between licensing (proof of registration and authority to operate) and legal capacity to sue (which rests with a duly constituted Management Committee).

Since the applicant failed to produce proof of a legally established Management Committee, it was deemed a non-existent entity in law.

The Court relied on precedents, including Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co. v. Fredrick Muigai Wangoe [1959] E.A. 474, a non-existent party cannot sue or be sued.

The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v. Mulangira Ssimbwa MA No. 576 of 2006 – legal actions instituted by non-existent entities are incompetent.

Holding

The Court upheld the preliminary objection.
The application for review was struck out.
No order as to costs was made, since a non-existent entity cannot pay or recover costs.

Key Takeaways

Only duly constituted legal entities may institute or defend proceedings. Licensing to operate a school does not in itself confer capacity to sue; the management structure must comply with statutory requirements.
Non-existent entities cannot litigate, and as such, Courts will not entertain suits or applications filed by bodies without legal personality.
This decision is a wake-up call for schools to ensure that Management Committees are properly appointed and approved by the DEO under the Education Act and Regulations to validly represent the institution in legal matters.

Read the full case