WHERE IS SHE GOING TO GET IT FROM? Court Orders RDC Prossy Mwanjuzi to Personally Pay 25M for Illegal Property takeover

By BM

The High Court sitting in Mubende has delivered a significant ruling in a judicial review case filed by Kalembe Mike, declaring that a directive issued by Mityana District Deputy Resident District Commissioner (RDC), Mrs. Proscovia Mwanjuzi, was illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper.

The directive, issued on August 7, 2025, had declared Kintu George Kisuze as the owner of a commercial building in Zigoti and instructed tenants to cease dealing with Kalembe and instead recognize Kintu as the rightful landlord.

Justice Tadeo Asiimwe presided over the matter in Miscellaneous Cause No. 0020 of 2025 and ruled in favour of Kalembe, awarding him UGX 25 million in both general and punitive damages, with interest, and further granted orders to prohibit the implementation of the RDC’s directive.

Kalembe had brought the case under Articles 42 and 44 of the Constitution, Section 44 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and various rules under the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2019.

He sought to challenge the legality of the RDC’s actions and prayed for an order of certiorari to quash her decision, an order of prohibition, a permanent injunction, a declaration that the decision was null and void, general and punitive damages, and costs of the application.

According to Kalembe’s affidavit, he had been the lawful occupant and user of the commercial property at Zigoti since 2006, including renting it out to tenants such as Equity Bank.

In 2025, Kintu George petitioned the RDC, challenging ownership of the same property.

The RDC, without involving Kalembe in a proper hearing, convened a ground meeting and summarily declared Kintu the rightful owner.

This decision was formalised in her report dated August 7, 2025, and circulated to local leaders and relevant stakeholders.

Kalembe argued that he was never afforded a fair hearing and that the process was fraudulent, procedurally flawed, and legally untenable.

He further asserted that the directive from the RDC risked disrupting the status quo in a matter that was already before court, and the continued implementation would render the court process nugatory.

He claimed to have suffered psychologically and financially due to the directive and demanded compensation.

The case proceeded ex parte after the respondent failed to file a defence or oppose the application.

Kalembe was represented by Counsel Kazungu Apollo, who filed written submissions highlighting the legal standards for judicial review.

In his ruling, Justice Asiimwe reiterated that judicial review focuses not on the merits of the decision but on the legality and fairness of the decision-making process.

Citing precedents such as John Jet Tumwebaze vs Makerere University and Balondemu David vs The Law Development Centre, the judge stressed that public authorities are expected to act within the confines of the law and uphold the principles of natural justice.

He stated that the RDC acted without jurisdiction and usurped the role of the courts.

The judge observed that Kalembe was in lawful possession of the building, yet the RDC had held a public meeting, heard only one party, and went on to declare ownership in favour of Kintu.

The tenants were directed to stop dealing with Kalembe, and Kintu was allowed to take over the property.

Justice Asiimwe noted that even if the Deputy RDC had any authority in such matters which she did not the Constitution guarantees a right to a fair hearing, which was grossly denied.

He emphasized that the process adopted by the RDC was fundamentally flawed and fell short of legal and moral standards, describing it as an act of gross unreasonableness and abuse of executive power.

The fact that the property in dispute was already a subject of ongoing litigation in the Mityana Magistrate’s Court further underscored the illegality of her actions.

On the matter of remedies, the judge held that an order of certiorari was warranted to quash the RDC’s decision, as she had acted without lawful authority.

General damages of UGX 10 million were awarded to Kalembe for the suffering, annoyance, and financial loss caused by the unlawful directive.

In addition, the court granted punitive damages of UGX 15 million, reasoning that the Deputy RDC’s actions were high-handed, unconstitutional, and amounted to a blatant abuse of office.

Justice Asiimwe explained that punitive damages were appropriate to deter such conduct by public officials, referring to legal precedent in Adong Rafaella vs UETCL.

An order of prohibition was also issued to stop the implementation of the RDC’s directive.

However, the judge declined to issue a permanent injunction, noting that the prohibition order was sufficient to serve the intended purpose.

Interest of 10% per annum on both general and punitive damages was granted from the date of the ruling until payment in full. The court also awarded costs to the applicant.

In conclusion, the High Court declared the RDC’s actions null and void, issued orders to quash the directive and bar its implementation, and awarded Kalembe substantial damages.

The judgment has been viewed as a stern reminder to public officials to act within the law and uphold constitutional rights, particularly the right to a fair hearing.

This ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications on the limits of administrative authority and may serve as a cautionary precedent for public servants who act outside their jurisdiction.