UDC loses bid to block court orders on recruitment, to pay costs

Court has dismissed, with costs, an application in which the Uganda Development Corporation (UDC) and its Executive Director, Dr Patrick Birungi had sought to halt an order requiring them to fill vacancies at the level of managers of departments.

The 2020 court order directed Dr Birungi to also promote and externally hire without the involvement of and the approvals from the executive committee of UDC and adherence to human resource manual which is illegal.

High Court judge Musa Ssekaana ruled that an order passed by a competent court should be allowed to be executed unless a strong case is made out on persuasive grounds.

“…Where the stay is to be granted, the court must be mindful of the time frame within which the final orders shall be made so as to defeat judicial review orders ineffective or become overtaken by events due to lapse of time,” Justice Ssekaana ruled.

Justice Ssekaana said that while exercising the powers conferred under the law of stay of execution, the court should duly consider that a party who has obtained a lawful order is not deprived of the fruits of the order except for good and cogent reasons.

UDC with its Executive Director Dr Patrick Bitonde Birungi had jointly asked the court to halt the implementation of its ruling and orders pending disposal of an intended appeal reasoning that if not stayed, the appeal will be rendered useless/ irrelevant.

According to the court records, UDC had argued that if not granted, the High Court decision would impact on the rights of innocent third parties including a number of UDC employees who are the subject of the challenged promotions and external hiring and whose employment status is now in jeopardy.

But Hellen Hannah Tumuhimbise, a former senior procurement officer of UDC, the respondent in the case described the UDC application as an abuse of court process, incompetent and bad in law saying the complaints raised by UDC are mere threats only intended to mislead court.

Court observed that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution and that the court does not deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of litigation and lock up funds with sufficient evidence he is entitled pending an appeal.

“If the government or a department of the concerned official fails to comply with the court order then it commits contempt of court for which, in suitable cases, can be punished by the concerned court. Punishment may amount to fine, imprisonment of the concerned government official, attachment of government property. Willful disregard or disobedience, or non-compliance, of a court order constitutes contempt of court,” the court ruled.

Last year, the same court ordered UDC to pay UGX10 million to Tumuhimbise as compensation for damages due the circumstances that caused her suffering resulting from wrongful exercise of power and abuse of authority.

The court also ordered UDC management to reinstate and renew Tumuhimbise’s contract which expired in August 2019 but had not been renewed.

However, UDC has since appealed against the court decision faulting the High Court judge but vainly applied to halt the decision.

Justice Ssekaana held that UDC and Dr Birungi did not adduce any evidence to show that the respondent (Tumuhimbise) had done any act to execute the orders of court.

“The respondent has not applied for a warrant of execution. There is no evidence that there is an imminent threat of execution and yet this is one of the most important conditions to be proved because if it is true. It renders the appeal nugatory,” he added.