Ssemakadde in Hot Soup! Court Declares His ULS Leadership Illegal, Blocks Entebbe AGM

By Aggrey Baba

Kampala High Court has issued an injunction stopping the Uganda Law Society (ULS) from holding its anticipated Annual General Meeting (AGM) that had been scheduled for Saturday, 18 October 2025, at Imperial Resort Beach Hotel in Entebbe.

The ruling, by Hon. Justice Bernard Namanya of the Civil Division, found that the ULS Council was not lawfully constituted and therefore lacked authority to convene any of the meetings or make binding decisions on behalf of the Society. The decision effectively freezes all actions and resolutions passed by the Society since mid-September, marking a new twist in the protracted leadership crisis that has gripped the legal fraternity.

The dispute traces its roots to September 2024 when the Uganda Law Society elected city lawyer Isaac Kimezze Ssemakadde as its president. Barely a month after assuming office, Ssemakadde issued what he termed “Executive Order No. 1 of 2024,” expelling the Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, and the Solicitor General from the Society’s governing Council. Yet under Section 9 of the Uganda Law Society Act (Cap. 305), the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are ex-officio members of that Council.

The move sparked outrage among lawyers and triggered a series of court cases challenging the legality of the Council’s composition and actions. In February 2025, Justice Musa Ssekaana ruled that any orders or resolutions issued by an unlawfully constituted Council were null and void. Despite that ruling, divisions deepened within the Society, with rival factions accusing each other of acting outside the law.

Matters came to a head on 17 September 2025 when a section of members convened a general meeting at Imperial Royale Hotel in Kampala, during which, two Council members in Mr. Munaabi Phillip, who was the Secretary, and Mr. Turyamusiima Geoffrey, representing the Central Region, were censured and removed from office.

However, two ULS members, Ms. Nabijewa Martha and Mr. Tumukunde Tonny, challenged the legality of that meeting, arguing that it had been convened by a Council that was not properly constituted since it excluded key statutory and elected members, including the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Secretary, and the Central Region representative. The pair filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 267 of 2025, seeking a declaration that both the September 17 general meeting and the planned AGM for October 18 were illegal. The main case is due to be heard on 20 October 2025.

In his ruling, Justice Namanya agreed that there were serious questions to be tried in the main case and that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if the AGM went ahead. He cited earlier rulings that affirmed the illegality of decisions made by a defective ULS Council and emphasized that the current Council had no legal capacity to convene a general meeting or call for elections.

He noted that while the Uganda Law Society has appealed the earlier High Court decision in Mugisha Hashim v. Uganda Law Society, the ruling remains valid since the Court of Appeal has neither set it aside nor stayed its execution.

“The status quo is that the Uganda Law Society Council is not lawfully constituted and is legally incapable of taking a binding decision on the affairs of the Society,” he ruled.

Justice Namanya further observed that the notice calling for the AGM, which was issued “by order of the ULS Council,” was itself evidence that the Council continued to act contrary to established court decisions.
The judge was particularly concerned about the inclusion of elections for nominees to the Judicial Service Commission on the AGM agenda. He stressed that any such election, which forms part of the Society’s constitutional role under Article 146 of the Constitution, must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law.

“Considering the very important constitutional function of the Judicial Service Commission in advising the President on the appointment of judicial officers, the election of nominees by the Uganda Law Society for appointment to the Commission must be devoid of any illegality,” he ruled, adding that the applicants, as members of the Society, stood to suffer substantial and irreparable injury if the AGM proceeded and produced results that could later be declared invalid.

Namanya therefore issued a temporary injunction barring the Uganda Law Society, its members, and officials from convening or holding the AGM on 18 October 2025, whether physically or electronically, until the court fully determines the pending case. He also restrained the Society from implementing any of the resolutions passed during the general meeting of 17 September 2025, reasoning that maintaining the status quo was necessary “to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated” and to safeguard the integrity of the Society’s governance process. The costs of the application were ordered to abide by the outcome of the main case.

The ruling has left the ULS in a state of paralysis. With its Council declared unlawfully constituted, its key meetings suspended, and its decisions frozen, the Society now faces a leadership vacuum at a time when it was preparing for major elections and constitutional nominations.

The case has also reignited debate over the internal governance of professional bodies and the limits of executive power within statutory associations.