The High Court in Kampala has issued a temporary injunction stopping the Uganda Law Society (ULS) from holding its annual general meeting (AGM) scheduled for this Saturday, October 18, 2025, at Imperial Resort Beach Hotel, Entebbe.
Justice Bernard Namanya delivered the ruling on Thursday, restraining the ULS, its members, and officials from convening or holding the AGM until the final determination of the main case or until further orders of the court.
The injunction also bars the implementation of resolutions passed at the ULS general meeting held on September 17, 2025, at Imperial Royale Hotel, Kampala.
“A temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the Uganda Law Society, its members and any of its officials from convening and holding an Annual General Meeting on 18th October 2025 or on any other date or future date until the final determination of Miscellaneous Cause No. 267 of 2025,” Justice Namanya ruled.
The ruling follows an application by ULS members Martha Nabijewa and Tonny Tumukunde, who argued that the current ULS Council is not lawfully constituted because key statutory members, including the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Secretary (Mr Munaabi Phillip), and Central Region Representative (Mr. Turyamusiima Geoffrey), did not participate in council decisions leading to the two meetings.
The main suit challenges the legality of the September 17 general meeting and the subsequent notice calling for the October 18 AGM. The applicants cited Section 9 of the Uganda Law Society Act, which provides that the Council must include the Attorney General and Solicitor General, and argued that any meetings convened without their participation are illegal.
“The affairs of the society continue to be managed by an improperly constituted Council,” they stated in their affidavits.
In response, ULS Vice President Anthony Asiimwe and Chief Executive Officer Christine Awori argued that the September 17 meeting was not convened by the Council but by members themselves under Section 16 of the Uganda Law Society Act, which allows members to requisition a general meeting.
They further stated that the applicants sought to sow discord within the society and disrupt the election of ULS nominees to the Judicial Service Commission, which was one of the agenda items for the Saturday AGM.
However, Justice Namanya noted that the notices for both meetings were issued by order of the ULS Council and, given that the Council’s legal status was in question, the process leading to the AGM was tainted.
Justice Namanya found that the main suit raised serious legal questions requiring determination, including whether the current ULS Council was properly constituted and whether it lawfully convened the two meetings.
“This court is satisfied that there are serious questions to be tried in the main suit,” he said, citing the pending Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2025: ULS and Another v. Mugisha Hashim and Others, which challenges an earlier High Court ruling declaring the ULS Council unlawfully constituted.
The judge emphasised that the decision in Mugisha Hashim v. Uganda Law Society, delivered in February 2025 by Justice Musa Ssekaana, remains binding because it has not been set aside or stayed.
Justice Namanya added that allowing the ULS to proceed with the AGM could cause irreparable injury, particularly regarding the election of nominees to the Judicial Service Commission, a constitutional body that advises the President on judicial appointments.
“The election of nominees by the Uganda Law Society for appointment to the Commission must be devoid of any illegality,” he stated.
The court also noted that the censure of Council members Phillip Munaabi and Geoffrey Turyamusiima at the September 17 meeting may have violated their right to a fair hearing.
In conclusion, the court issued two main injunctions: one halting the October 18 AGM and another suspending the implementation of all resolutions from the September 17 meeting. “This order covers both physical meetings and electronic meetings by whatever means,” the judge clarified.
The judge held that the costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the main suit, which is scheduled for hearing on October 20, 2025, before the High Court of Uganda.