The High Court has overturned a ruling by the Makerere University Staff Appeals Tribunal that reinstated Dr. Eria Olowo Onyango, an assistant lecturer, dismissed for misconduct.
The court’s decision delivered yesterday by Justice Simon Peter Kinobe, declared the tribunal’s ruling illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing dispute over university governance and staff disciplinary processes.
The case stemmed from a disciplinary action initiated against Dr. Onyango in 2019. Employed as an assistant lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Onyango applied for promotion to senior lecturer.
However, during the evaluation process, the university’s Appointments Board discovered that he had lost a student’s exam script for the course SOC 2021: Social Research Methods Ethnographic Theory. An investigation committee found that Dr. Onyango could not account for the missing script, leading to charges of negligence, refusal to perform official duties, and failure to discharge responsibilities.
Following a disciplinary hearing in 2022, the Appointments Board found Dr. Onyango guilty and dismissed him from university service on August 18, 2022.
Onyango appeals
Dissatisfied, Dr. Onyango appealed to the Staff Appeals Tribunal, which, on August 14, 2024, overturned the dismissal. The tribunal ruled that while the charges against Dr. Onyango were proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Appointments Board had erred in classifying his actions as gross misconduct under section 5.8 of the Makerere University Human Resources Manual.
The tribunal ordered his reinstatement and payment of salary arrears, sparking controversy over its jurisdiction and adherence to procedural rules.
Makerere University sought judicial review in the High Court, arguing that the tribunal’s decision was flawed on multiple grounds.
The university contended that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deliver its ruling, acted irrationally by ordering reinstatement without justification, and failed to adhere to its own procedural rules, which mandate resolving appeals within 45 days.
The appeal, lodged on August 30, 2022, took nearly two years to resolve, far exceeding the stipulated timeframe. The university further argued that paying salary arrears was unjustified, as Dr. Onyango had not performed any duties since his dismissal.
Dr. Onyango, represented by Imrans Advocates and Solicitors, countered that the tribunal’s decision was lawful and justified. He argued that the Appointments Board’s handling of his case was biased and unlawful, focusing on the lost script rather than his promotion application.
He claimed the tribunal had jurisdiction, noting that delays were due to the temporary absence of a chairperson, which was later resolved. Dr. Onyango further asserted that the university’s application was a bad-faith attempt to deny him his rights and waste court resources.
In his ruling, Judge Kinobe sided with Makerere University, emphasizing the tribunal’s failure to adhere to the 45-day rule as a critical factor.
Citing precedents such as URA v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd and Re Application by Mustapha Ramathan, the court held that statutory time limits are matters of substantive law, not mere technicalities, and must be strictly followed.
The court issued several orders: a declaration that the tribunal’s ruling was illegal, irrational, and unreasonable; an order of prohibition preventing Dr. Onyango from enforcing the tribunal’s orders; an order of certiorari quashing the tribunal’s ruling; and an order of mandamus directing the tribunal to comply with its procedural rules.
The university was also awarded costs.
The ruling aligns with a previous case, Makerere University v Makerere University Staff Appeals Tribunal and Dr. Malowa Davis Ndayi, where the court similarly upheld the university’s right to judicial review, reinforcing the principle that no public authority is inherently unreviewable.
Dr. Onyango’s legal team has not yet indicated whether they will appeal the High Court’s decision.
