1. 1. Discuss the Judicial Remedies
Approach:
Define judicial remedies
Identify and discuss the judicial remedies
Elements and Applications of Judicial remedies
Suggested Answer
Judicial remedies are means which a court of law in exercising of enforcement of right, imposes a penalty
or makes an order in the ordinary proceeding of a court. Where an application for judicial review is
successful the following remedies are available.
1. Prerogative Orders
The Judicature Act part IV provides for Judicial Remedies.
S. 36. Prerogative orders, JA Cap 13(mandamus, prohibition and certiorari):
In Lex Uganda Advocates & Solicitors v. AG, held that prerogative orders are remedies for the exercise of
power by those in public offices, and they are available to give relief where a private person is challenging
the decision or action of a public authority or public body or anyone actibng in the exercise of a public
duty.
S.36 (1) JA Cap 13 provides that the High Court may make an order, as the case may be, of—
(i) mandamus (Mandatory Order)- requiring any act to be done: is an order from the High Court
commanding a public authority or official to perform a public duty. In R V Barker (1762) 3 Burr 1265,
the purposes was to prevent disorder from the failure of justice.
A mandatory order compels public authorities to fulfill their duties. Whereas quashing and
prohibition orders deal with wrongful acts, a mandatory order addresses wrongful failure to act. A
mandatory order is similar to a mandatory injunction (below) as they are orders from the court
requiring an act to be performed. Failure to comply is punishable as a contempt of court. Examples of
where a mandatory order might be appropriate include: compelling an authority to assess a disabled
person’s needs, to approve building plans, or to improve conditions of imprisonment. A mandatory
order may be made in conjunction with a quashing order, for example, where a local authority’s
decision is quashed because the decision was made outside its powers, the court may simultaneously
order the local authority to remake the decision within the scope of its powers.
(ii) Prohibition (prohibiting order), prohibiting any proceedings or matter: Prohibition is an order issued
primarily to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction, or acting contrary to
the rules of natural justice. R V Electricity Commissioner, anybody having a legal authority and acts
beyond their authority, are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King.
A prohibiting order is similar to a quashing order in that it prevents a tribunal or authority from
acting beyond the scope of its powers. The key difference is that a prohibiting order acts
prospectively by telling an authority not to do something in contemplation. Examples of where
prohibiting orders may be appropriate include stopping the implementation of a decision in breach of
natural justice, or to prevent a local authority licensing indecent films, or to prevent the deportation
of someone whose immigration status has been wrongly decided.
(iii) Certiorari(Quashing Order), removing any proceedings or matter to the High Court: Certiorari is an
order quashing decisions by inferior courts, tribunals and public authorities where there has been an
excess of jurisdiction or an ultra vires decision; a breach of natural justice; or an error of law. By

2. Baker Kosmac-Okwir
Islamic University in Uganda Page 1 LLB II Administrative Law -Semester I 2011/2012
setting aside a defective decision, certiorari prepares the way for a fresh decision to be taken. In
Kikonsa Butema Farms Ltd V. IGG- was held that must be shown that despondent acted beyond his
jurisdiction.
A quashing order nullifies a decision which has been made by a public body. The effect is to make the
decision completely invalid. Such an order is usually made where an authority has acted outside the
scope of its powers (ultra vires). The most common order made in successful judicial review
proceedings is a quashing order. If the court makes a quashing order it can send the case back to the
original decision maker directing it to remake the decision in light of the court’s findings. Or if there is
no purpose in sending the case back, it may take the decision itself.
2. Ordinary Orders
(i) An injunction may be claimed against a public authority or official, to restrain unlawful acts
which are threatened or are being committed. It is an equitable remedy in the form of a court
order, whereby party is required to do or refrain from doing. In Geila V Sassman Brown & Co,
held that for an interim injunction to be granted, it must be shown that the applicant has a prima
facie case, with a probability of success.
An injunction is an order made by the court to stop a public body from acting in an unlawful way.
Less commonly, an injunction can be mandatory, that is, it compels a public body to do
something. Where there is an imminent risk of damage or loss, and other remedies would not be
sufficient, the court may grant an interim injunction to protect the position of the parties before
going to a full hearing. If an interim injunction is granted pending final hearing, it is possible that
the side which benefits from the injunction will be asked to give an undertaking that if the other
side is successful at the final hearing, the party which had the benefit of the interim protection
can compensate the other party for its losses. This does not happen where the claimant is legally
aided.
(ii) A declaratory judgment may be obtained which merely declares the legal relationship of the
parties and is not accompanied by any sanction or means of enforcement. The authority of a
court's ruling on law is such that a declaratory judgment will normally restrain both the
government and public authorities from illegal conduct. In Opoloot V AG, court refused to grant
the applicant on grounds that it would embarrass and prejudice they security of the state.
A declaration is a judgment by the Court which clarifies the respective rights and obligations of
the parties to the proceedings, without actually making any order. Unlike the remedies of
quashing, prohibiting and mandatory order the court is not telling the parties to do anything in a
declaratory judgment. For example, if the court declared that a proposed rule by a local authority
was unlawful, a declaration would resolve the legal position of the parties in the proceedings.
Subsequently, if the authority were to proceed ignoring the declaration, the applicant who
obtained the declaration would not have to comply with the unlawful rule and the quashing,
prohibiting and mandatory orders would be available.
(iii) Damages, the court may award damages if these have been sought by the applicant and the
court is satisfied that damages could have been obtained by an action brought for the purpose.
Damages are available as a remedy in judicial review in limited circumstances. Compensation is
not available merely because a public authority has acted unlawfully.

3. Baker Kosmac-Okwir
Islamic University in Uganda Page 2 LLB II Administrative Law -Semester I 2011/2012
The discretionary nature of the remedies outlined above means that even if a court finds a public
body has acted wrongly, it does not have to grant any remedy. Examples of where discretion will
be exercised against an applicant may include where the applicant’s own conduct has been
unmeritorious or unreasonable, for example where the applicant has unreasonably delayed in
applying for judicial review, where the applicant has not acted in good faith, where a remedy
would impede the an authority’s ability to deliver fair administration, or where the judge
considers that an alternative remedy could have been pursued.
(iv) Habeas Corpus.-means produce the body is remedy provided for illegal detention. Section 34 of
JA Cap 13, provides for High Court may at any time, where a person is deprived of his or personal
liberty otherwise than execution of a lawful sentence, may award a writ of habeas corpus
directed to the person in whose authority custody the person deprived of liberty. In Re Twaaha
Wanande HC, court held that in any application for a writ of habeas corpus, the applicant must
show that the arrest and detention were unlawful in the first place.
(v) JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review is provided for s.36 (10) of JA Cap 13. The power to review lies with the High
Court. The Act limits the time for an application for review to Three months from the date when
the ground arose unless court has good reason to extend time.
Grounds for Judicial Review
Judicial review is different from an appeal. The distinction is that an appeal is concerned with the
merits of the decision under appeal while judicial review is concerned only with the legality of the
decision or act under review. In the GCHQ Case (1985), Lord Diplock classified the grounds on
which administrative action is subject to judicial control under three heads, namely, illegality,
irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
(A) ILLEGALITY
Illegality as a ground for judicial review means that the decision-maker must understand
correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he
has or not is a question to be decided in the event of dispute by judges. This would mean that
when a power vested in a decision-maker is exceeded, acts done in excess of the power are
invalid as being ultra vires (substantive ultra vires).
An example would be where a local council, whose power is derived from statute, acts outside
the scope of that authority. Bromley Council v Greater London Council (1983).
Government Ministers have also sometimes acted outside their authority. R v Home Secretary,
ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995).
(B) IRRATIONALITY
By irrationality as a ground for judicial review, Lord Diplock in the GCHQ Case (1985) meant what
is referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness.In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v
Wednesbury Corp (1948) the Court of Appeal held that a court could interfere with a decision
that was 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it'.
Lord Diplock in the GCHQ Case said that this “applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its
defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his
mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”

4. Baker Kosmac-Okwir
Islamic University in Uganda Page 3 LLB II Administrative Law -Semester I 2011/2012
Case examples include: Strictland v Hayes Borough Council (1896), R v Derbyshire County
Council, ex parte The Times (1990)
This ground has been used to prevent powers from being abused by, for example, exercising a
discretion for an improper purpose or without taking into account all relevant considerations.
(C) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY
Procedural impropriety as a ground for judicial review covers the failure by the decision-maker to
observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislation by which its jurisdiction is
conferred, or a failure to observe basic rules of natural justice, or a failure to act with procedural
fairness (procedural ultra vires).
DOCTRINE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
The Main rules of Natural Justice
(i) nemo judex in causa sua potest (no man can be a judge in his own cause), which will be
breached where the decision-maker has a direct financial interest or has acted both as
prosecutor and judge, or where there is a real danger of bias. R v Altringham Justices ex parte
Pennington (1975)
(ii) audi alteram partem (hear the other side), which requires prior notice to be given of a decision
adverse to individual interests together with an opportunity to make representations. Ridge v
Baldwin (1964).