NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW
Administrative law is a branch of public law (legal principles and rules) that governs the
organization, powers, procedures, and practices of administrative agencies within government.
This field of law focuses on the relationship between individuals and entities and government
agencies, ensuring that these agencies operate transparently, fairly, and within the bounds of the
law1. Key components of administrative law include the creation and structure of administrative
agencies, rulemaking processes, adjudication, enforcement, and mechanisms for judicial review.
Administrative law serves to protect individual rights, promote accountability, and maintain the
rule of law in modern democracies. It plays a crucial role in balancing the need for efficient
governance with the principles of fairness, due process, and transparency.
Administrative agencies for example; the Food and Drug administrator, are responsible for
implementing and administering specific laws and regulations. They as well follow specific
procedure when creating the laws like public notice. They also have authority to make laws,
issue regulations and take action in their designated areas of responsibility. They are required to
make their decision fair and justice. They also derive their authority from legislation passed by
elected representatives such as the congress at the federal level/ state legislation
Objectives of administrative law
 Regulating Administrative Agencies: Administrative law establishes the rules and
procedures that govern the activities of administrative agencies. It ensures that these
agencies operate within their delegated authority and do not exceed their powers, thereby
preventing abuse of authority.
 Protecting Individual Rights: A fundamental objective of administrative law is to
safeguard the rights of individuals interacting with administrative agencies. This includes
ensuring procedural fairness in decision-making processes and providing mechanisms for
individuals to challenge administrative decisions that may adversely affect them.
 Promoting Accountability and Transparency: Administrative law seeks to enhance
accountability and transparency in the operations of administrative agencies. It requires
agencies to disclose information about their activities and decisions, allowing for public
scrutiny and oversight.
 Balancing Administrative Discretion and Legal Constraints: Administrative law aims to
strike a balance between granting agencies the necessary discretion to perform their
functions effectively and imposing legal constraints to prevent arbitrary decision-making
and abuse of power.
 Ensuring Rule of Law: Administrative law is instrumental in upholding the rule of law by
providing a framework for the exercise of governmental authority. It ensures that
administrative actions are consistent with statutory and constitutional principles, and that
agencies act within the limits of their statutory mandates.
1
Bhavya Arora: Nature, scope and development of Administrative law
  Facilitating Efficient Administration: While ensuring legal safeguards, administrative law
also aims to facilitate the efficient administration of government programs and services.
It provides mechanisms for streamlining administrative processes and resolving disputes
effectively.
 Adapting to Changing Societal Needs: Administrative law is dynamic and responsive to
evolving societal needs and expectations. It adapts to changes in public policy and the
administrative landscape, ensuring that it remains relevant and effective in addressing
contemporary issues.
NOTE:
By fulfilling these objectives, administrative law plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance
between individual rights and the effective functioning of government, thereby contributing to a
just and equitable society.
Sources of administrative law
Administrative Law is derived from various legal foundations, including constitutions, statutes,
rules, judicial decisions, and recognized legal concepts. Administrative law does not have a
single source; instead, it is the result of the convergence of several legal aspects, which
collectively constitute the rules, processes, and guiding principles that govern the operations and
interactions of administrative agencies. Constitutions define the scope and authority of agencies,
whereas statutes distribute authority and responsibilities.

 Constitution: The Constitution is the supreme law and serves as the foundational source
of administrative law. It outlines the powers and limitations of administrative authorities
and ensures that administrative actions comply with constitutional principles, such as
legality, reasonableness, and fairness.
 Statutes: These are laws enacted by legislatures that govern the operations of
administrative agencies. Statutes provide the legal authority for agencies to act and set
out the framework within which they must operate.
Regulations: Created by administrative agencies under the authority of statutes,
regulations provide detailed rules and procedures that agencies must follow in their
operations. These are authoritative sources of law.
 Case Law: Judicial interpretations of statutes and regulations form an important source of
administrative law. Courts' decisions in administrative law cases help clarify the
application of laws and set precedents that agencies must follow.
 Administrative Decisions: Rulings made by administrative agencies in specific cases are
also authoritative. These decisions can set precedents for future cases and guide the
actions of the agency.
 Executive Orders: Directives issued by the executive branch that have the force of law
are considered authoritative sources of administrative law.
Agency Guidelines: While not legally binding, these recommendations or best practices
issued by agencies can influence administrative actions and decisions.
  International Treaties: Agreements between countries may influence domestic
administrative law, although they are generally considered persuasive unless incorporated
into domestic law.

NATURAL JUSTICE.
Definition of Justice:
According to the Legal information institute, Justice is defined as
the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and
reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls
another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken and that both the accuser and
the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions.
Definition of natural justice
Natural justice is defined as the fundamental principles of "fair play in action" and procedural
fairness, ensuring impartiality and reasonableness in decision-making processes, especially when
an individual's rights are affected an example of such rights is enshrined in Article 40 of the
1995 Constitution of Uganda.
2
Lexis Nexis defines it as the basic fundamental principles of fair treatment.
3
Anil K Bansal describes the rules of natural justice as a hedge serving against blatant
discrimination of the rights of individuals.
Natural justice is considered a cornerstone of fair administrative processes, upholding the rule of
law and protecting individual rights against the abuse of power by administrative bodies. It
ensures that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.
Natural justice in Uganda is a fundamental legal concept ensuring fair treatment by
administrative bodies, based on two core principles: audi alteram partem (the right to be heard)
and nemo judex in causa sua (the rule against bias). These principles are enshrined in the 1995
Constitution of Uganda, particularly Article 28 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 42 (right to
a fair hearing in administrative decisions). Individuals affected by administrative decisions
have a right to apply to court for judicial review, seeking remedies like certiorari to quash unjust
decisions.

Principles of natural justice.

1 The basic principles entailed in natural justice may be summarized as including the following;
2
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/natural-justice
3
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-rule-of-natural-justice-administrative-law-
essay.php
a). Individuals should be provided notice, in sufficient detail, as to the scope of the hearing and
the allegations against them and/or any negative information to fairly enable the individual to
show any error that may exist;
According to A. de Smith in his book Judicial Review of Administrative Action, "...The
governing principle ought to be that authorities empowered to make decisions that are seriously
detrimental to the liberty, proprietary rights, livelihood, status or reputation of individuals should
be required to give prior notice and opportunity to be heard to those who are directly affected,
except where the imposition of such duties would be impracticable or manifestly contrary to the
public interest or Parliamentary intent..."1
b). the hearing should be held within a reasonable time after the notice has been provided;
c). the individual should have an opportunity to be heard and reply to the allegations and/or
negative information;
d.) The individual should be entitled to question witnesses, especially those giving evidence
against the individual;
e). the individual should be entitled to call witnesses;
f). the individual should be entitled to request an adjournment or postponement for a reasonable
period of time, especially if the individual or one of the individual's witnesses has a legitimate
inability to attend;
g). the persons hearing the matter should be possessed of a reasonable level of expertise relative
to the matters being dealt with. In a University setting, this would mean that faculty, staff and
students would constitute the Hearing Committees, as appropriate, and would possess sufficient
knowledge of University issues to bring to the tribunal the necessary expertise:
h). The Committee hearing the matter has a duty to approach the hearing with an open mind,
listen fairly to both sides, and to reach a decision untainted by bias;
i). Members of the hearing panel should ensure that grounds for setting aside the hearing on a
reasonable apprehension of bias do not exist, and they, therefore, should absent themselves if
there is a special relationship or association with the individual appearing before the hearing;
J). A record of the proceedings of the hearing should be kept and the individual should be
provided with a copy of the record or at least a summary of the evidence of the proceedings;
l). the individual should be provided with a copy of the hearing committee's decision or
recommendations, together with the reasons;
m). In cases concerning discipline, where a decision is made and the consequences of the finding
may have serious consequence on an individual's future, consideration should be given to
permitting the individual to make submissions as to the penalty;
n). Depending on the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences of a negative decision
and the complexity of the issues involved, the individual may be entitled to representation or
legal counsel, but there is no absolute right to such counsel. NB. These are general guidelines
and not law as such.

Judicial Review
This is where a person aggrieved by decisions of administrative authorities may apply for
judicial review.
This may be defined as the review of the court to review actions of the legislative, executive, and
administrative branches of government in Uganda. Judicial review under the 1995 Uganda
Constitution arises from Article 28 (right to a fair hearing), Article 42 (right to just and fair
treatment in administrative decisions), Article 44 (the right to a fair hearing), and also under the
Judicature (Judicial Review Rules, 2009).
The powers of the judicial review are also contained under Section 36 of the Judicature Act
which provides that the High Court shall have powers of review and shall have powers to grant
prerogative remedies of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Circumstances for its rise

1. Illegality / Doctrine of ultra vires
This may refer to decisions that exceed legal authority or violate statutory provisions. Illegality
may also mean where the decision-maker acts beyond their legal powers (ultra vires).
Example:
A minister exercising power not delegated by law. Ultra vires means acting beyond the powers
which are given.
This illegality may arise in the following situations:
i) Subject matter
Where the public authority purports to exercise a power, function, and responsibility that the law
does not grant. In the case of Re Abdalla Ali, where the principal immigration officer served the
applicant with the deportation order and had the power to deport non-citizens, the applicant was
a Tanzanian citizen and the High Court brought up a jurisdiction on the officer over a matter
that the law didn’t place under him.
ii) Action of decision by the wrong person or authority.
Decisions must be taken by the proper authority and there must be a person entrusted with the
powers under the law. For example; the power exercised by the CAO cannot be exercised by the
chairperson. The wrong power exercised by the person becomes illegal.
iii) Body not proper constituted.
The public body must be properly constituted. This was also stated in the case of Hon. Mukasa
Fred Mbidde & Hon. Micheal Mabike V LDC 2013 under paragraph 15 “the public Body is
improperly constituted in the following
a) When the required number of members is not appointed or where there is no body
constituted in accordance with the law.
b) Where non-members participate” like in the case of Dent V Kiambu Liquor licensing
Court “the Liquor licensing Tribunal allowed the non-members to attend the Court’s
meetings and also debate whether the applicant should get a license. They also voted
against the issue of the license to the applicant. The High Court held that the Licensing
Body had made a decision when it wasn’t constituted.
c) Members don’t participate fully. A body is not fully constituted where a minimum
number don’t participate in the proceedings. Members have to take part in hearing,
evidence and decision making. In Annebert Aslund v A.G where all commissioners
refused to sign on the final report and the court asked the applicant to challenge any
references on her in the report. Court held that the reports of making references on her
could not be used as a basis of further action.
d) Unlawful delegated powers. This may also arise in the following instances; i) where
there is a statutory prohibition, for example under S.1754. ii) Where there is delegation
of discretionary powers. iii) Where the maximum of delegates non protest delegate
applies. iv) Where there is the delegation of judicial powers. In Rahemutula Gulamani
v R where the cotton Ordinance gave power to the governor to make rules for the cotton
plants after picking seasons. Court held that the rules under the cotton were
unenforceable.

2. Procedural ultra-virus
This is where rules of Natural justice (fair Hearing, impartiality) are violated. Procedures
are normally ascertainable from
i. The 1995 Constitution of Uganda
ii. Acts of Parliament
iii. Subsidiary Legislations
Procedural requirements in the exercise of public administrative powers include;
i. Consultation: under this, a person to consult is usually a person charged
with formation of particular law or policy. Interest groups under
consultation include; professional bodies and government Departments.
And the main purpose of consultation is to ensure that the resultant
policies/laws are accepted by the greater majority of powers.
ii. Antecedent publication: some laws require publication before enactment
of regulations. Antecedent publication may be in Uganda Gazette e.g.
under the Parliament’s Acts or newspapers. The LGA under paragraph
16 requires that the council shall, not later than 14 days before a bill is to

4
Local government Act
 debated by the council publish the draft a) by fixing a bill in a conspicuous
place.
iii. Approvals: certain decisions need to be approved by a particular body for
example Ministers and statutory corporations etc. S.1755, give powers to
the ministers of Local government power to amend the Schedules of the
Local Government Act.
iv. Posterior publicity (gazette): under the local government act S.38(4)
provides that a bill enacted by the distinct council and assigned by the
distinct Chairperson under this section shall be an ordinance of the council
and shall be published in the official Gazette and in the Local Media.
Gazetting is also under the interpretation Act S.13-16 which provides for
the requirement in all subsidiary legislation, in whatever form or name
must be gazetted before courts takes their validity or existence.
v. Registration
vi. Inspections
3. Abuse of discretionary powers.
Some Acts of parliament give administrative authorities discretionary powers to make
decisions or take action on the basis of their own judgment.
General rule: there is nothing like absolute discretion irrespective of the wording of a
statute.
Discretions allow the holder of discretionary powers to decide on the following;
i. Whether particular decisions or action can be taken
ii. When a particular decision or action can be taken.
iii. How particular decisions can be made.
Legal control of discretionary powers.
i. They must be exercised in relation to the objectives of a particular status.
ii. It must aim at achieving the objectives set out in the enabling law. This
must be exercised judiciously i.e. be in accordance with the law, taken into
account relevant facts and evidence and respect rights of person e.g.
principles of natural justice.
Abuse of discretionary powers arise in the following situations;
i. Taking into account irrelevant consideration. Discretion must aim at
achieving the objectives of a particular legislation. The relevant authority
must therefore take into account the relevant facts and disregard the
irrelevant consideration. Irrelevant considerations in the exercise of
discretionary powers are illustrated in the case of Re-application of
Bukoba Gym Khana Club, the club held a license for over 30 years and
when it applied for renewal, the relevant license authority declined to give
approval. The reason given for the refusal was that the club’s rules of
admission made it difficult for Africans to become members. This was not
one of the conditions of the license. On review the Court ruled that the

5
Government Act
 licensing Authority had abused its discretion by considering Rules which
were not relevant to that particular license.
Whereas in Fernardes V Kericho Liquor Licensing Company, the
application of the license was denied on the grounds the facts the
applicant was not a Kenyan Citizen. Citizenship was not a condition for
licensing6. Court held that citizenship was an irrelevant consideration
which should not have influenced the licensing decision. This case also
contradicts with the Art.21 of the constitution
ii. Improper purposes.
They mean different stated objectives. This includes use of discretionary
powers to achieve some objectives other than those anticipated by the
statutory. In the case of Roberts V Hopwood where the local authority
had powers to determine wage level and used its powers to determine
equal wages amongst women and men. Court held that this was an
attempt to use statutory power of setting wages in order to achieve
socialist philosophy and feminine ambitions of equality of sex Under
Article 21
iii. Unreasonableness.
Reasonableness is what is acceptable in a particular society. What is
reasonable depends on a judgment of a reasonable person in a particular
society. Reasonableness may relate what is enforceable, affordable,
manner and coed of behavior, costs of operation, status of persons, cultural
manners, ambiguity and uncertainty, this was illustrated in R V Harmitte,
where the local authority had powers to enact by-laws and made a law
that “no person shall create any disturbance so as to create/be an
annoyance to any resident or passenger” under this case, annoyance or
disturbance wasn’t clear therefore unenforceable
Unreasonableness has also been extended to i) partial and unequal
treatment of person, unjust measures, oppressive decisions and absurdities.
This was illustrated in the above case of (Roberts V Hopwood). Court
held that it was unreasonable for public Authority to use its discretionary
powers regarding wages and put in place provisions that require payment
of equal wages to men and women.
iv. Negligence.
v. Fetter of discretionary powers
vi. Acting without evidence
vii. Failure to give reasons
viii. Bad faith
ix. Error on records

RIGHTS TO NATURAL JUSTICE

6
Chapter 4 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda
The right to natural justice and the right to a fair hearing are closely related concepts in Ugandan
law, both rooted in ensuring procedural fairness and due process, but they differ in scope and
application. Below, I explain their relationship, particularly in the context of the Constitution of
the Republic of Uganda, 1995, and illustrate with relevant case law.

Relationship between Natural Justice and the Right to a Fair Hearing

1. Conceptual Overlap:
 Both principles aim to ensure fairness in decision-making processes affecting individuals’
rights. Natural justice is a broader common law doctrine encompassing two core rules:
*nemo judex in causa sua* (no one should be a judge in their own cause, ensuring
impartiality) and *audi alteram partem* (the right to be heard). The right to a fair hearing
is a specific manifestation of these principles, often codified in legal frameworks,
focusing on judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
 In Uganda, the right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed under **Article 28** of the 1995
Constitution, incorporates elements of natural justice but is tailored to formal legal
proceedings (civil or criminal). Meanwhile, **Article 42** extends natural justice
principles to administrative decisions, covering a wider range of non-judicial processes.

2. Constitutional Embedding:
 Article 28(1) provides: “In the determination of civil rights and obligations or
any criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy and public
hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by
law.” This codifies the right to a fair hearing, explicitly requiring impartiality
(*nemo judex*) and the opportunity to present one’s case (*audi alteram
partem*).
 Article 42 states: “Any person appearing before any administrative official or
body has a right to be treated justly and fairly and shall have a right to apply to a
court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against him or her.”
This applies natural justice to administrative actions, ensuring fairness beyond
courtrooms.
 Article 44 declares the right to a fair hearing non-derogable, elevating its status
as an absolute right, while natural justice under Article 42, though fundamental,
is not explicitly non-derogable but still constitutionally protected.

3. Scope and Application:

  Natural Justice: Applies to both judicial and non-judicial settings, including
administrative bodies, tribunals, disciplinary committees, or government agencies. It
ensures procedural fairness in any process affecting rights, such as employment
terminations or license revocations.
 Fair Hearing: Primarily applies to formal judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings,
guaranteeing specific protections like legal representation, public hearings, and the
presumption of innocence in criminal cases. It is a subset of natural justice, focusing
on court or tribunal settings.
 Relationship: The right to a fair hearing is a specific application of natural justice
principles in judicial contexts, while natural justice extends these principles to a
broader range of decision-making processes. In essence, a fair hearing is one way
natural justice is realized in court proceedings, but natural justice also governs non-
judicial fairness.

4. Shared Principles:
 Both emphasize impartiality, the right to be heard, and reasoned decisions.
 Both require decision-makers to avoid bias and provide individuals with notice of
allegations, access to evidence, and an opportunity to respond.
 Both are enforceable through judicial review, where courts can quash decisions
violating these principles.

5. Distinction in Practice:
 Natural justice under Article 42 is invoked in administrative actions, such as government
or institutional decisions, where no formal trial occurs. For example, a public servant
dismissed without a hearing can challenge the decision under Article 42.
 The right to a fair hearing under Article 28 applies to formal legal proceedings, such as
criminal trials or civil disputes, ensuring specific procedural guarantees like legal
representation or an interpreter.

Case Law Illustrating the Relationship

1. Nyakaana v National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and Others

[2015] UGSC 14 NEMA demolished the appellant’s property under an Environmental
Restoration Order without prior notice or hearing. The appellant challenged this as a
violation of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court found that NEMA’s actions
 breached both **Article 28 (fair hearing) and Article 42 (natural justice)**. The Court
emphasized that administrative actions affecting property rights must adhere to natural
justice principles, specifically *audi alteram partem*, by providing notice and a hearing
opportunity. It noted: “An Environmental Restoration Order… is issued in total
disregard to the due process of the law.”
This case shows how natural justice (Article 42) applies to administrative decisions, while the
fair hearing principle (Article 28) was invoked because the decision impacted constitutional
property rights. The overlap lies in the shared requirement of procedural fairness, but Article 42
extended protection to NEMA’s non-judicial process, while Article 28 reinforced the need for a
hearing in matters affecting fundamental rights.

2. Godber Wilson Tumushabe v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Application 121 of

2023) [2025] UGHCCD 19, The applicant challenged a university dismissal for lack of
procedural fairness, alleging no opportunity to be heard. The High Court ruled that the
dismissal violated **Article 42** (natural justice) by failing to provide a hearing before
the decision. While Article 28 was not directly applied (as no formal court proceeding
was involved), the Court referenced its principles to underscore the importance of
fairness in administrative contexts.
The case demonstrates natural justice as a broader principle governing administrative actions,
while the fair hearing concept informed the Court’s reasoning on what constitutes fairness (e.g.,
notice and opportunity to respond). Natural justice here extended fair hearing-like protections to
a non-judicial setting.

3. Uganda Law Society v Attorney General [2009] UGSC 13, the case challenged actions
undermining judicial independence, impacting fair trial rights. The Supreme Court
upheld the non-derogable right to a fair hearing under Article 44©, stating it
encompasses natural justice principles like impartiality. It linked this to Article 28,
emphasizing that fair hearings require independent tribunals, a core aspect of nemo
judex in causa sua.
The case shows how the fair hearing right (Article 28) is a specific constitutional guarantee
rooted in the broader natural justice principle of impartiality, reinforcing their interconnectedness
in judicial contexts.
CONTENTS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
Fair hearing refers to a judicial proceeding that is conducted in such a manner as to conform to
fundamental concepts of justice and equality. Article 44 makes the right to fair hearing non-
derogable. In a criminal trial when an individual is arrested, a fair hearing means the right to be
notified of the charge being brought to him or her and the chance to meet that charge. The right
to fair hearing is fundamental to the rule of law and democracy.
In the Ugandan context, the right to fair hearing involves the accused person being informed of
the charges against him or her therefore it is one of the fundamental and derogable human rights
in Uganda, encompassing various segments of rights to be observed during criminal trials as
enshrined under article 28 of the constitution.
In the case of Kawooya Joseph versus Uganda, the Supreme Court in its judgement reasoned
that every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. It includes entitlement to a public before an
independent and impartial court being presumed innocent until proven guilty, being informed
of the charges in a language understood, adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, the
right to legal representation, and the right to a speedy and public trial. According to article 28,
these are the main contents of the right to fair hearing in Uganda are explained below
according to the judicial interpretation of this article.
1. It includes allowing all witness to be called to their respective parties and giving each
party’s witness. In Ceylon University versus Fernando, Supreme Court held that failure to
afford audience or allow witnesses to be questioned or cross examined breached the
principles of natural justice and therefore the report of the chancellor was null and void.
2. Public hearing (subject to limited exceptions):- Trials should be public, through the court
may exclude press or public for morality, public order or national security.
3. Speedy hearing or no undue delay; Litigation or criminal trial must not be unreasonably
delayed.
4. Presumption of innocence; the accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proved or a
plea of guilty is entered.
5. Notice must be given in adequate terms so that the prospective victim knows the essence
of the case he has to meet and can prepare his answer properly and also to be informed of
the charge in a language understood; the accused must be promptly told the nature of the
offence in a language they understand. In Desouza versus Tanga Town council, court
held that notice should include the substance of the allegations of the charge and it
must specify the time and the place where the hearing is to take place.
6. Adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense; reasonable time and ability to marshal
evidence and instruct counsel.
7. Right to appear in person or be represented; a defendant may appear personally or by a
lawyer of their choice; if facing death or life imprisonment, the State must provide
 counsel. According to Enderby Town football Club versus The Football Association Ltd,
court held that denial of legal representation is not necessarily breach of natural justice.
8. Interpreter assistance; free interpreter if the accused cannot understand the trial language.
9. Access to the record and reasons; after judgement the accused or authorised person is
entitled to a copy of the proceedings on payment of prescribed fees; reasoned judgements
support the ability to appeal. In Ridge versus Baldwin, Lord Reid stated that before
attempting to reach any decision, they should inform the person of the grounds upon they
propose to act and give him an opportunity of being heard in his own defense.
10. No retrospective criminal law or heavier penalty; no conviction for acts not criminal at
the time and no heavier penalty than the law provided when the act was done.
Therefore, Ugandans right to fair hearing in article 28 is comprehensive. It is not only a
guarantee of an impartial tribunal and public hearing but contains specific procedural protections
and protected from derogation. Courts treat these protections as fundamental, where authorities
or tribunals fail to respect them, remedies include nullifying proceedings, ordering retrials,
declaratory relief and damages.

CONTENT ABOUT CALLING FOR WITNESSES AND CROSS EXAMINATIONS,

DUTY TO GIVE REASONS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
1. WITN ESSES
Natural Justice maybe infringed where a person is not allowed to call witnesses in support of his
case.
R Vs Hull Prison Board of Visitors
A former prison officer challenged his dismissal by the board of visitors on grounds of natural
justice, arguing that he was not given a chance to present his case or receive a reason for
termination.
The case established that the board of visitors must adhere to the rules of natural justice when
making decisions.
In some cases it has also been held that a person has a right to cross examine witness from the
other side. However this is not a must but one should be given an opportunity just in case he or
she asks.
2. Duty to give reasons
It is not a principle of natural justice that reasons should be given for decisions, nevertheless, it is
generally accepted that fairness in administration includes the duty to give reasons for decisions.
Breen Vs Amalgamated Engineering Union. Lord Denning stated that, the giving of
reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.
3. Legal Representation.
Any individual has a right to legal representation thus individuals should be allowed to decide
whether to be represented by lawyers or not.

Exemptions to the Right of Fair Hearing in Uganda

In Uganda, the right to a fair hearing is both a constitutional guarantee (Article 28 and 44 of the
constitution 1995) and a principle of natural justice in administrative law. However just like in
common law jurisdictions, Ugandan courts have recognized exemptions/limitations where a prior
fair hearing may not strictly be required.
The right to fair hearing is not absolute in administrative proceedings and maybe excluded in the
following cases;
1. Emergency & Public Interest Situations
Administrative bodies may act without a prior hearing if urgent action is needed
to protect public order, health, or security. Orders under the Public Health Act (e.g., quarantine
during an epidemic), or suspension of a license to avert immediate danger. This can also be
illustrated in the case of White Vs Redfern7 where the right to fair hearing was excluded because
there was urgent need to protect public health and destroy bad food that was exposed for sale.
2. Confidential/National Security Matters
This should be considered under Article 43 of the constitution which provides that “in the
enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this chapter, no person shall prejudice the
fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest”. Therefore
where disclosure or a hearing would compromise state security, foreign relations, or sensitive
information, a prior hearing may be dispensed with. For example National security deportations
or suspension of officials under security suspicion. In the case of Commissioner of Prisons v.
Joram8, Joram was a prison officer in Uganda. He was dismissed from service by the
Commissioner of Prisons without being given an opportunity to be heard. The dismissal was
justified on grounds of public interest and national security. Joram challenged the dismissal,
arguing that it violated the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair
hearing. The issue in court was whether the Commissioner of Prisons was obliged to give
Joram a fair hearing before dismissing him from employment. The East African Court of
Appeal held that, normally natural justice requires that a person should not be condemned
unheard. However, in exceptional cases involving matters of public interest, security, and
discipline in sensitive services (like prisons or police), an employer may dismiss an employee
without a prior hearing. The dismissal was therefore lawful. Thus security considerations
justified administrative action without prior hearing.
7
(1879)
8
[1971] EA
NB: Where an employer summarily dismisses an employee the right of a fair hearing is excluded
unless contractual or statutory procedural duties are cast on the employer, the court can only
grant an employee damages for breach of contract if dismissal is wrongful but cannot declare the
decision to dismiss null and void.
3. Impracticality (Large Numbers Affected)
Where the number of persons affected is so large, it may be impractical to give each an
individual hearing. For example: Cancellation of national examination results (Uganda National
Examinations Board cases). Courts have sometimes accepted that individual hearings are not
feasible, though fairness must still be observed through other means (like public inquiries,
representation through associations).
In conclusion, Article 44(c)9 makes the right to a fair hearing non-derogable (it cannot be
suspended even in a state of emergency). This means courts are strict even when exemptions
apply, there must be strong justification and often a requirement of post-decisional hearing.

RULE AGAINST BIAS

The Latin maxim Nemo Judex in causa sua literally means that “no one should be a judge in
their own case “it’s the rule against bias. This principle requires that the person or body making
a decision must be impartial and free from any prejudice or personal interest in the case.
It is one of the two core principles of natural justice, the other being audi alteram partem (hear
the other side). The principle of Nemo judex in causa sua forms the backbone of natural justice.
It ensures that justice is not only done but also appears to be done, thereby upholding fairness,
equality, and the rule of law. In Uganda, courts have consistently enforced this principle to check
administrative excesses and guarantee citizens’ rights
This principle prohibits decision-makers (whether judges, tribunals, or administrative officers)
from presiding over cases where they have a personal interest. The aim is to prevent bias,
prejudice, or conflict of interest in the decision-making process. Even the mere appearance of
bias is enough to vitiate a decision, because justice must not only be done but also be seen to be
done. In Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates10, The Supreme
Court stressed that decision-makers must act without bias or personal interest, otherwise their
rulings risk being overturned

Types of Bias
1. Pecuniary Bias – where the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome. In the
case of Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852): A judge’s ruling was quashed because
he held shares in the canal company.
9
The 1995 Constitution of Uganda
10
Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994
 2. Personal Bias – where the decision-maker has a personal relationship (friendship,
hostility, family ties) with one of the parties.
3. Subject-matter Bias – where the decision-maker has a prior involvement, opinion, or
interest in the case subject.
4. Departmental or Policy Bias – often in administrative law, where a decision-maker is
inclined towards a particular policy that affects impartiality.
In a case of Twinobusingye Severino v Attorney General11 the petitioner challenged the
impartiality of a parliamentary committee investigating oil contracts. It was argued that some
members had pre-judged the matter. The Constitutional Court emphasized the importance of
avoiding bias in quasi-judicial bodies.
NOTE:
Any other administrative decisions: For example, in disciplinary proceedings within government
institutions, decisions have been quashed where the officer presiding had a vested interest.

Purpose of the Rule

 Ensures fairness and public confidence in the justice system.
 Prevents abuse of power by administrative authorities.
 Protects fundamental rights by ensuring impartial adjudication.
Criticism / Challenges
 In practice, it is not always easy to detect bias, especially policy bias in administrative
authorities.
 Some argue that insisting on absolute neutrality can delay decisions, especially where
specialized officers are required.

11
Constitutional Petition No. 47 of 2011