A panel of three judges at the Appeal Court has decisively dismissed Paul Mwirus appeal challenging the educational qualifications of Igeme Nathan Nabeta, the representative for Jinja East.
The coram of three judges; Monica K. Mugenyi, Irene Mulyagonja and Fredrick Egon -Ntend squsched the appealing alluding that it’s moot (appeal is moot” refers to a situation in legal proceedings where the original issue that led to the appeal no longer exists or has been resolved, making the appeal irrelevant or unnecessary)
Case background
As per court records, on June 24, 2015, the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), identified as the First Respondent, collaborated with the Uganda National Examinations Board (UNEB), the Second Respondent. Together, they granted Mr. Nathan Samson lgeme Nabeta, the Third Respondent, a Certificate of Completion of Formal Education at Advanced Level Standard or its Equivalent (Certificate No. NCHE/PAR/OS/148), commonly referred to as a ‘certificate of equivalence.’
Nabeta pursued this certification to facilitate his candidacy in the 2016 Parliamentary Elections, vying for the position of Member of Parliament for Jinja Municipality East Constituency.
However, complications arose when Mr. Paul Mwiru, then the incumbent Member of Parliament for the same constituency, filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 62 of 2015 in the High Court of Uganda situated in Jinja. Mwiru sought to challenge the decision of the First Respondent to issue the aforementioned certificate of equivalence. His contention rested on the assertion that this issuance violated Legal Notice No. 12 of 2015 and the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions (Equating of Degrees, Diplomas, and Certificates) Regulations of 2005.
The High Court dismissed Miscellaneous Cause No. 62 of 2015, hence the present Appeal. In his appeal, Mwiru urged that the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact in holding that the certificate of completion of formal education of advanced level standard or its equivalent certificate number NCHE/PAR0S4 48 issued by the first Respondent to the third Respondent was validly issued
Mwiru also noted that the Learned trial Judge Basaza Wasswa erred in law and in fact in assuming that the qualifications of the third Respondent that were actually equated by the first Respondent purposely in consultation with the second Respondent were legally valid and accordingly that the Court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the equating process of the second Respondent.
He contested that Justice Wasswa erred in law and in fact in holding that there were no discrepancies between the third Respondent’s degree transcript from Oklahoma State University and his transcripts from Los Angeles City College and Tulsa community college which would have rendered the third Respondent ineligible to join university.
However lady Justice Mugenyi who has been the main judge deliver her ruling on Monday asserting that although Mwiru brought the case on basis of public interest, she found no attempt whatsoever by the Appellant to bring his Appeal within the parameters of the public interest exception to the doctrine of mootness.
Justice Mugenyi noted that in accordance with Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1350, mootness is defined as the principle allowing an appellate court to address and decide a moot case under specific circumstances.
These circumstances include when the case involves a question of significant public importance, the question is likely to reoccur in the future, and the question has previously evaded appellate review.
However, in Mwiru’s case, the Appellant has not made any effort to align his appeal with the parameters of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. Therefore, the presiding authorities upheld the preliminary objection, concluding that the appeal is moot.
Referring to the case of Diamond Sidney A, ‘Federal Jurisdiction to Decide Moot Cases, she proposed that ‘when a court decides that a case before it is moot, it ousts itself of jurisdiction. “ Accordingly, my finding of mootness would conclusively determine this matter without the need to delve into the merits of the Appeal.The upshot of my consideration hereof is to hereby strike out this Appeal and order each party to bear its own costs.”
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
