text:
Lithium hydroxide
Regulatory process names 6 CAS names 1 IUPAC names 21 Trade names 4 Other identifiers 2
↓Groups:
Print infocard Open Brief Profile Open Substance Regulatory Obligations
Mol. formula: HLiO
Danger! According to the classification provided by companies to ECHA in REACH registrations this substance causes severe skin burns and eye damage, is harmful if swallowed and causes serious eye damage.
This substance is used by consumers, in articles, by professional workers (widespread uses), in formulation or re-packing, at industrial sites and in manufacturing.
This substance is used in the following products: adhesives and sealants, lubricants and greases, hydraulic fluids, metal working fluids, fillers, putties, plasters, modelling clay and biocides (e.g. disinfectants, pest control products).
Other release to the environment of this substance is likely to occur from: indoor use (e.g. machine wash liquids/detergents, automotive care products, paints and coating or adhesives, fragrances and air fresheners), outdoor use, outdoor use in long-life materials with low release rate (e.g. metal, wooden and plastic construction and building materials) and indoor use in long-life materials with low release rate (e.g. flooring, furniture, toys, construction materials, curtains, foot-wear, leather products, paper and cardboard products, electronic equipment).
Release to the environment of this substance can occur from industrial use: industrial abrasion processing with low release rate (e.g. cutting of textile, cutting, machining or grinding of metal).
Other release to the environment of this substance is likely to occur from: outdoor use in long-life materials with low release rate (e.g. metal, wooden and plastic construction and building materials) and indoor use in long-life materials with low release rate (e.g. flooring, furniture, toys, construction materials, curtains, foot-wear, leather products, paper and cardboard products, electronic equipment).
This substance can be found in complex articles, with no release intended: electrical batteries and accumulators and machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical/electronic products (e.g. computers, cameras, lamps, refrigerators, washing machines).
This substance can be found in products with material based on: stone, plaster, cement, glass or ceramic (e.g. dishes, pots/pans, food storage containers, construction and isolation material), fabrics, textiles and apparel (e.g. clothing, mattress, curtains or carpets, textile toys) and metal (e.g. cutlery, pots, toys, jewellery).
This substance is used in the following products: hydraulic fluids, lubricants and greases, metal working fluids, adhesives and sealants and fillers, putties, plasters, modelling clay.
This substance is used in the following areas: building & construction work, formulation of mixtures and/or re-packaging and health services.
This substance is used for the manufacture of: chemicals.
This substance is used in the following products: lubricants and greases, metal working fluids, hydraulic fluids, adhesives and sealants and fillers, putties, plasters, modelling clay.
This substance is used in the following products: lubricants and greases, metal working fluids, hydraulic fluids, inks and toners, polymers, adhesives and sealants and fillers, putties, plasters, modelling clay.
This substance is used for the manufacture of: chemicals, mineral products (e.g. plasters, cement), textile, leather or fur, electrical, electronic and optical equipment and machinery and vehicles.
Release to the environment of this substance can occur from industrial use: in processing aids at industrial sites, in the production of articles, as an intermediate step in further manufacturing of another substance (use of intermediates), of substances in closed systems with minimal release, as processing aid and as processing aid.
ECHA has no data from registration dossiers on the precautionary measures for using this substance.
Details of dossier compliance checks and testing proposal evaluation.
Metals and Inorganics Sectoral Approach list of substances
Testing proposals - previous consultation
Harmonised classification and labelling - previous consultation
Harmonised classification and labelling targeted consultations - previous consultation
Proposals for new, or updates to existing harmonised classification and labelling of substances.
Cosmetic Products Regulation
Cosmetic Products Regulation, Annex III - Restricted Substances
EU. Restricted Substances: Annex III, Regulation 1223/2009/EC on Cosmetic Products, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/1902, OJ L 387 of 3 November 2021
This list contains substances whose use in cosmetic products in the European Union is banned, except under certain conditions as indicated in Annex III. The list specifies the field of application or use, maximum allowable concentration limits in finished products, and any additional limitations.
Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive
Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex I - ADR
EU. Dangerous Goods List (ADR, Chap. 3.2, Table A), Directive 2008/68/EC, last amended by Directive 2020/1833/EU, 4 December 2020
This list contains the ADR Dangerous Goods List, as implemented by the European Union's Directive 2008/68/EC. This Directive applies the European Agreements on the international transport of dangerous goods by road (ADR) and inland waterways (ADN), and the regulations concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail (RID). The specific CAS linked as members on this list are representative examples, but not exhaustive.
Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex II - RID
EU. Dangerous Goods List (RID, Chap. 3.2, Table A), Directive 2008/68/EC, last amended by Directive 2020/1833/EU, 4 December 2020
This list contains the RID Dangerous Goods List, as implemented by the European Union's Directive 2008/68/EC. This Directive applies the European Agreements on the international transport of dangerous goods by road (ADR) and inland waterways (ADN), and the regulations concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail (RID). The specific CAS linked as members on this list are representative examples, but not exhaustive.
Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex III - ADN
EU. Dangerous Goods List (ADN, Chap. 3.2, Table A), Directive 2008/68/EC, last amended by Directive 2020/1833/EU, 4 December 2020
This list contains the ADN Dangerous Goods List, as implemented by the European Union's Directive 2008/68/EC. This Directive establishes rules for the safe transport of dangerous goods between EU countries by road (ADR) and inland waterways (ADN), and the regulations concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail (RID). The specific CAS linked as members on this list are representative examples, but not exhaustive.
EC Inventory, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex I - ADR, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex II - RID
Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex III - ADN, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex I - ADR, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex II - RID
Cosmetic Products Regulation, Annex III - Restricted Substances, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex I - ADR, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex II - RID
Pre-Registration process, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex I - ADR, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex II - RID
Lithium hydroxide (Li(OH))
LITHIUM HYDROXIDE SOLUTION
hydroxyde de lithium
Lithium (1+) Hydroxide
Lithium Hydrokside
Lithium Hydroxid
Lithium Hydroxide Anhydrous [for General Organic Chemistry]
Lithium Hydroxide Hydrate
Lithium Hydroxide, Monohydrate
Lithium idroxide monohydrate
lithium(1+) hydroxide
Registration dossier, Other
lithium(1+) ion hydroxide
lithium(1+) ion oxidanide
lithium;hydroxide
Lithium Hydroxide Monohydrate
EC Inventory, C&L Inventory, Registration dossier, Pre-Registration process, Cosmetic Products Regulation, Annex III - Restricted Substances, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex III - ADN, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex I - ADR, Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods Directive, Annex II - RID, Other
Group parents
This substance has been identified as member of the following groups of substances:
Results list is empty
lithium carbonate; lithium chloride; lithium hydroxide - - Expert judgement (ECHA)


Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 16;107(11):5136-41. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911220107. Epub 2010 Mar 1.
LRP6 overexpression defines a class of breast cancer subtype and is a target for therapy.
Liu CC1, Prior J, Piwnica-Worms D, Bu G.
Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
The Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway is activated in breast cancer, a leading cause of cancer mortality in women. Because mutations in the key intracellular components of this pathway are rare, identifying the molecular mechanisms of aberrant Wnt activation in breast cancer is critical for development of pathway-targeted therapy. Here, we show that expression of the Wnt signaling coreceptor LRP6 is up-regulated in a subpopulation of human breast cancers. LRP6 silencing in breast cancer cells reduces Wnt signaling, cell proliferation, and in vivo tumor growth. In vivo administration of an LRP6 antagonist, Mesd, markedly suppressed growth of MMTV-Wnt1 tumors without causing undesirable side effects. These results demonstrate that Wnt activation at the cell surface contributes to breast cancer tumorigenesis. Together, our studies highlight LRP6 as a potential therapeutic target in breast cancer, and introduce Mesd as a promising antitumor agent for treating breast cancer subtypes with Wnt activation at the cell surface.
LRP6 expression is frequently up-regulated in a subset of human breast cancer tissues and cell lines. (A) Breast cancer TissueScan Real-Time qPCR array, containing seven normal/Stage 0 cDNAs and 41 human breast cancer cDNAs, was analyzed for LRP6 expression by real-time PCR. Averages of relative LRP6 expression from three independent plates are plotted with clinical status indicated. LRP6 mRNA levels are markedly up-regulated in a subset of human breast cancer tissues. #Samples with elevated HER2 transcripts. (B and C) Breast cancer tissue microarray was used for IHC staining of LRP6. (B) Representatives of LRP6 staining in normal and malignant breast tissue are shown. LRP6 antibody (C-term T1546, Abgent), which specifically recognizes human LRP6, was used for IHC staining. (C) The quantification of LRP6 IHC staining was determined from three independent experiments. Staining intensity was scored as absent (0), weak (1), moderate (2), or strong (3). Four observations were made on each slide by independent investigators, and a mean score was recorded. (D) Expression of LRP6 in human mammary epithelial cell (MCF-10A) and indicated breast cancer cell lines analyzed by Western blot analysis. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 16;107(11):5136-5141.
Knockdown of LRP6 in MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells decreases Wnt signaling, breast cancer cell viability, proliferation, and colony formation. MDA-MB-231 cells were transduced with lentivirus expressing control or LRP6 shRNA. Cells were then subjected to the indicated analysis 48 h postinfection. (A) Western blot and densitometric analysis show that both LRP6 shRNAs reduce LRP6 expression in MDA-MB-231 cells compared with control shRNA. (B) LRP6 down-regulation suppressed Wnt signaling examined by free β-catenin pull-down (Left) and TOPFlash reporter assays in the absence (Center) and presence (Right) of Wnt3a ligands. (C) Quantitative real-time PCR shows that expression of Wnt target genes (Cyclin D1, c-Myc, and Axin2) is down-regulated in cancer cells expressing LRP6 shRNA2. GAPDH was included as a control gene. (D) Knockdown of LRP6 decreased cell viability assessed by MTT assay. (E) Proliferation of breast cancer cells expressing LRP6 shRNA2 was suppressed by ∼50% as measured by BrdU incorporation. (F) Soft agar colony formation assay demonstrating reduced colony formation when LRP6 expression was knocked down. Data are mean ± SD from three independent experiments. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
shRNA-resistant LRP6 and CA β-catenin rescue Wnt signaling and cell growth in MDA-MB-231 cells. (A and B) MDA-MB-231 cells expressing control or LRP6 shRNA were transfected with vector control or shRNA-resistant LRP6 (LRP6-Res). (A) Levels of LRP6 expression were examined by Western blot analysis. (B) Cells were then treated with L or Wnt3a CM. Expression of LRP6-Res in MDA-MB-231 cells restored Wnt signaling, detected by TOPFlash reporter assay. (C) Expression of LRP6-Res in MDA-MB-231 cells rescued cell growth detected by MTT assay. (D–F) MDA-MB-231 cells expressing control or LRP6 shRNA were transduced with retrovirus expressing IRES-GFP vector control or CA β-catenin. (D) Free β-catenin levels were analyzed by GST–E-cadherin pull-down. (E) CA β-catenin promoted Wnt activation independent of Wnt3a ligand. (F) CA β-catenin expression restored breast cancer cell growth determined by MTT assay. All results are the mean ± SD of three independent experiments. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
Down-regulation of LRP6 significantly inhibits breast tumor growth in vivo. MDA-MB-231 cells (pooled clones) stably expressing control or LRP6 shRNA were injected s.c. into female BNX immunocompromised mice. Tumors initiated from 5 × 105 or 2 × 106 cancer cells were indicated as Low # or High #, respectively. Low #, thoracic pair; High #, caudal pair; control tumors, left; LRP6-KD tumors, right. Tumor growth was monitored over time for 3 weeks by in vivo bioluminescent imaging and caliper measurements. (A) Representative bioluminescence images over time from the same mouse bearing MDA-MB-231 xenografts. (B and D) Growth of tumors over time for control and LRP6-KD xenografts is shown as fold changes of bioluminescence photon flux values over initial value (1 day postinjection). Data are mean ± SEM (six animals, four tumors each) from two independent experiments. (C and E) Tumor volume was monitored for 3 weeks by caliper measurement. (LxWxD). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. (F) Gross examination of xenograft tumors. (G) Levels of LRP6 and Wnt target gene expressions (Cyclin D1, c-Myc, and Axin2) in control and LRP6-KD xenograft tumors detected by Western blot analysis. (H) Immunohistochemical analysis of LRP6 level in control and LRP6-KD xenograft tumors with anti-LRP6 antibody (Abgent). (Scale bars, 50 μm.) (I) Western blot analysis showing total and free β-catenin in LRP6-KD tumors were decreased.


The Episode starts with AK asking Tanuja if she will come to him to save him from girl friend. Tanuja says I am your savior. AK looks at her and asks about the bangles which he gave to her. Tanuja says she will wear. AK asks what did I say while giving it. Tanuja says it is your mother's bangles which you gave with trust. AK says it is a trust and says very soon you will be Mrs. Abhishek Khurana and asks her to wear it. Kuch Der Bahon Me song plays…….Tanuja takes out Rishi's ring and thinks about the trust which AK has on her.
Rishi comes to the hall for marriage and sits in the mandap. Manzilein song plays. Rishi reminisces Tanu and Tanuja. He reminisces Tanu telling she will come to him even if she dies in every birth. He recalls Tanu asking her not to get engaged. He recalls moments with Tanuja, and Ak telling that his story is finished. He gets up from mandap and says whatever happening is wrong. Rano tries to stop him. Manpreet says he will talk to Rishi and takes him.
Maasi tells Tanuja that she is looking beautiful and says when AK told about his marriage decision, she thought that the girl has some qualities. She tells that the bangles are of my late sister and says if he gave you this then it means. She then thinks about Pandit's words and says he told you will not marry AK. Tanuja says she will marry AK and asks her not to worry.
Rishi tells Rano that when he sat in mandap, he saw Tanuja and needs only her. He asks her not to say anything if she wants his happiness. He says he just needs Tanuja. Tanuja thinks Rishi is her past now and she will have a new life which will start with her daughter and ends with her daughter.
Rishi goes to the room and sees Tania there, he asks where is Netra? Servant says she went to mandap. Netra comes downstairs and asks where is Rishi. Rishi holds her hand and says you are a good mother and a person and apologizes her, says I can't marry you. Kanchal says Rishi. Rishi asks her not to interfere and tells Netra that his heart is with Tanuja., they can't stay together. Netra is shocked.


At Hexagon, we take water treatment seriously. We believe that water is a most precious resource. As a software vendor, we are committed to the need to champion the cause of providing water treatment plant design solutions. Like so many other industries, CADWorx Plant Professional software offers the same capabilities and value to the water treatment industry. The Water Treatment industry is really three industries in one; consisting of Water Purification, Waste Water Treatment, and Desalination. Each has its unique requirements and, at the same time, all of them share commonalities such as Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Ultra-Filtration (UF) technology. The ability to model these systems in CADWorx Plant Professional has been demonstrated around the world.
Kurita Water Industries Ltd. (Kurita Water) is one of Japan's leading water and environmental management companies. To date, the company had successfully used a combination of Microsoft Office tools and software developed in-house to manage its design requirements and material purchasing. However, the Global Engineering Center in Kurita Water decided to evaluate design solutions specifically tailored to the needs of the small-to-medium plant market to meet its changing needs. A strong requirement was that any new integrated design solutions be able to work alongside Kurita Water's existing in-house systems.
After considering the solutions available in the market, Kurita Water decided to purchase CADWorx Plant Professional and 70 seats of CADWorx P&ID Professional.
"CADWorx solution was the best fit for our company's requirements, specifically those related to functionality and customization," said Takashi Kurita, manager of the Design Quality Improvement Section of Kurita Water's Global Engineering Center.
Kurita Water's initial focus has been on boosting operational efficiency and quality by improving the process of generating process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs).


This tutorial consists of a simple facebook messenger bot which, when given a movie name replies back with details about the movie along with a poster image as well as a More Details button. Clicking this button redirects the user to a page with more details on the movie.
For the chat bot to function we'll need a server that will receive the messages sent by the Facebook users, process this message and respond back to the user. To send messages back to the server we will use the graph API provided by Facebook. For the Facebook servers to talk to our server, the endpoint URL of our server should be accessible to the Facebook server and should use a secure HTTPS URL. For this reason, running our server locally will not work and instead we need to host our server online. In this tutorial, we are going to deploy our server on Hasura which automatically provides SSL-enabled domains.


text:
Not-for-Profit, Award-Winning Community News and Views for Windham County, Vermont • Since 2006
This mobile menu is quite working yet! Your editor's doing his best. Check out the desktop site for links and our long-overdue site search function.
Click here to make a one-time donation to support your not-for-profit community news source
Sponsor a Library
Every week, The Commons mails newspapers to libraries and schools throughout Windham County, and beyond. Of course we do! Part of our mission is make sure that honest, award winning reporting is available to all, regardless of ability to pay.
Now you can help further our mission. Only $75 guarantees a library or school delivery of The Commons for a full year. Join our Sponsor-a-Library program today! Click here (and select "Sponsor a Library" when asked "Apply My Donation To.")
Order a T-shirt!
Now you can look great, and show the world your support of The Commons! Click here to visit our online store.
Help us thrive!
Make a recurring donation
Click to submit your news
• Send a story idea
• Publicize your event
• Send a press release
• Send to Milestones (obituary, wedding, birth, academic achievement)
Click to submit to Voices
• Write a letter in response to a story
• Contribute a Viewpoint, Essay, or Memoir
• We would love local artists to submit work to illustrate the section.
Basic deadline information
• Please book your ad space before Friday at 3:30 p.m.
• We are happy to design your ad. If you would like that, please make sure we get your copy by that time.
• If you are designing your ad, please send by Monday at noon.
Let's talk advertising
We'd love to help you with your ads! Please let us know a little bit about your advertising and your needs, and one of our team will be in touch promptly. You can also call Jen at 802-246-6397 Monday–Friday, 10 a.m.–3:30 p.m.
Regular ad features
Nuts 'n' Bolts (home improvement)
Public Notices (Legal Ads)
Front Page Box
Section Cover Strip Ads
More than a newspaper
The Commons is the public face of a larger nonprofit organization, Vermont Independent Media, Inc.
We came to life from the ground up in 2004, as members of the community became increasingly concerned about the consequences of absent corporate ownership of the daily newspaper in town and the need for local people to have access to the skills to create their own grassroots media.
VIM came to life lovingly and carefully thanks to indefatigable volunteers. The first public programs of the Media Mentoring Project began in 2005, and the first issue of The Commons was published in 2006. The newspaper was published monthly until 2010, when we began a weekly schedule. We are published on Wednesdays 51 times a year.
Recognizing that a vigorous exchange of ideas and information allows democracy to function and is the lifeblood of a community, Vermont Independent Media:
• creates a forum for community participation,
• promotes local independent journalism,
• fosters civic engagement by building media skills
through publication of The Commons and commonsnews.org, and through the Media Mentoring Project.
Nonprofit IRS filings
By law, every 501(c)3 nonprofit organization must make its IRS filings available to the public. Here are ours.
We attempt to keep our small newsroom open during the day on weekdays. But we are sometimes out covering the news, many of us are part-time, and we keep odd hours. We welcome your visit, but please make an appointment so you don't make a special trip.
Directions to the office
We're at 139 Main St., Brattleboro, Vermont (the Hooker-Dunham Building).
Office #601A: Newsroom
Office #604: Business/Advertising
Brattleboro, VT 05302
Connecting all departments: 802-246-6397
Email for general inquiries: info@commonsnews.org
General newsroom address: news@commonsnews.org
General advertising address: ads@commonsnews.org
Urgent, desperate advertising emergencies: adalert@commonsnews.org
Recent PDFs
These PDFs are built from the final files that were printed and represent an accurate facsimile of the issue's content.
Please be warned: These files are very large and not at all suitable for dialup connections.
We maintain files of a limited number of back issues in our office. Please email info@commonsnews.org, and we will make them available if we can.
Search The Commons from 2010 to present
Huge chunks of ice line the banks of Whetstone Brook after an ice jam was broken up on Jan. 25 in West Brattleboro.
Floods force 50 people to safety
In West Brattleboro, ice jams, rain, and warmth cause Whetstone Brook to surge
By Olga Peters/The Commons
WEST BRATTLEBORO—Warm temperatures, heavy rain, and floating ice contributed to localized flooding along the Whetstone Brook in West Brattleboro on Jan. 24.
Emergency services evacuated more than 50 people from the Mountain Home and Glen Park mobile home parks and Melrose Terrace.
Brattleboro's Department of Public Works oversaw the demolition of two ice jams on Whetstone Brook. There were no reported injuries.
Fire Chief Michael Bucossi received the emergency call at approximately 12:49 p.m. on Jan. 24.
According to Bucossi, an ice jam approximately 200 yards long had dammed the Whetstone Brook near Village Drive, and water was flowing into Mountain Home Park.
Responders evacuated 11 homes along Village and Edgewood drives.
Bucossi said responders worried that if the jam suddenly released, it could send a torrent of water downstream, so homes on Glen Street and in Melrose Terrace were evacuated as a precautionary measure.
But Mother Nature wasn't done with West Brattleboro yet.
Second blockage
Bucossi wrote in a news release that "at approximately 2:30 p.m. a second ice jam formed just upstream from the first, this one behind Brookwood Drive."
"Approximately eight homes were evacuated as water flooded this area," he said.
Bucossi said most people had left their homes in Mountain Home Park before responders arrived. A few, however, needed help, so firefighters used a bucket loader to transport people through the floodwaters.
The initial evacuation count was 50 people, Bucossi said. Later counts, however, put the number closer to 75.
Bucossi noted that a short-term shelter opened at the Gibson-Aiken Center. Town employees and members of the American Red Cross staffed the shelter.
Bucossi said 15 evacuees from Melrose Terrace and Glen Street used the shelter. Family and friends took in the majority of evacuees.
"Several pets were also removed from the flooded areas and went with their owners," Bucossi said.
While local businesses in West Brattleboro didn't report any damage, the flood waters did slow travel on Route 9.
Water filled parking lots in West Brattleboro. The Redemption Center on Route 9 closed for the day due to the situation, according to Bucossi.
Residents on Melrose Terrace and Glen Street were given the all-clear at 7:30 p.m. The shelter at the Gibson Aiken Center closed by 9 p.m., Bucossi said.
Bucossi said that with evening, temperatures dropped, and that helped stabilize the ice jam.
Still, evacuations on Village, Edgewood, and Brookwood Drives remained in effect throughout Thursday night because of high water.
It was all part of a busy Thursday night for the fire department.
While some members of the department responded to the flooding, others were called to a Dummerston house fire. Members of the BFD swift water rescue team traveled to Vernon to remove residents trapped by ice and flood waters around four houses.
Bucossi reminded community members that "when we ask you to evacuate, it's for your safety."
At approximately 2 p.m. on Friday afternoon, contractors broke the jams and the flood waters receded.
According to Director of Public Works Steve Barrett, the first jam formed at a bridge leading into the park located east towards town close to Leader Home Center.
The town contacted the state before breaking up the ice jams. Barrett said whenever working in streams or rivers, the DPW collaborates with state river engineers and Agency of Transportation staff.
Once they received the go-ahead from the state, DPW hired two excavators. Staff with Renaud Brothers of Vernon and Bellco Construction Group of Brattleboro cleared the ice.
The wild swings in temperature played a role in creating the ice jams.
After several days of sub-zero weather, temperatures rose into the upper 40s on Jan. 24 as nearly 2 inches of rain fell onto an ice-covered watershed. Warm weather and heavy rain broke up the thick ice covering Whetstone Brook and then sent the ice chunks hurtling downstream.
Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
We rely on the donations and financial support of our readers to help make The Commons available to all. Please join us today.
What do you think? Leave us a comment
Editor's note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers' personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn't say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.
We are currently reconfiguring our comments software. Please check back if you'd like to read or leave comments on this story. —The editors
{"commentics_url":"\/\/www.commonsnews.org\/site\/sitenext\/helpers\/comments\/","auto_detect":"0"}
Originally published in The Commons issue #495 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019). This story appeared on page A1.
More by Olga Peters

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Dale Eaglesham
Dale Eaglesham is a veteran comic book illustrator who has been working in the industry since 1986. He has worked with DC Comics, Marvel, Dark Horse, and CrossGen, among others. In January 2009, he signed an exclusive contract with Marvel, where he will be illustrating the Fantastic Four. Working on this legendary series is a… Read More Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Dale Eaglesham
02/27/2010 Kevin A. Boyd
Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Rebecca Kraatz
Rebecca Kraatz was born in British Columbia in the Okanagan Valley. She has worked at a car racetrack in the ticket booth, in a candy store, putting screws on car battery terminals, as a layout artist for newspapers, as a make-up artist and hair-stylist, as a rag picker, a seamstress and selling vintage clothing. Nova… Read More Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Rebecca Kraatz
Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Philippe Girard
Philippe Girard / phlppgrrd Né à Québec en 1971, Philippe Girard publie sa première bande dessinée à l'âge de huit ans dans le magazine 'Je me petit débrouille'. En 1997, il lance avec Jean-François Bergeron et Leif Tande le fanzine Tabasko!, une publication mensuelle qui paraîtra régulièrement pendant deux ans. En 2000, il participe à… Read More Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Philippe Girard
Visions of an Icon: Wolverine(s) by Shane Heron
Shane submitted two pieces for the gallery show and auction: Shane Heron does the artwork for the online comic Awesome Marcus Ninja (Shane came onto the strip with Season 5) as well as working on a creator-owned mini-comic starring his character, Shagaharamesh, who battles champions, gods & demons on his quest to become the Almighty.… Read More Visions of an Icon: Wolverine(s) by Shane Heron
Visions of an Icon: Wolverine vs. Wendigo by Jay Stephens
Jay Stephens was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada in 1971, and moved around a lot as a kid. Much of his youth was spent contemplating the wonders of movies, music, television, and comic books, without any undue criticism from the surrounding grown-ups, for which he is eternally grateful. Jay's maternal grandparents lived in a very… Read More Visions of an Icon: Wolverine vs. Wendigo by Jay Stephens
Lemire's The Underwater Welder GN coming in 2012
Joe Shuster Award winning cartoonist Jeff Lemire (Essex Country Trilogy, Sweet Tooth, The Nobody) will be producing an original, 250 page graphic novel entitled THE UNDERWATER WELDER to be published by Top Shelf in 2012. Pressure. As an underwater welder on an oilrig off the coast of Nova Scotia, Jack Joseph is used to the… Read More Lemire's The Underwater Welder GN coming in 2012
Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Rich Dannys
Rich Dannys is a cartoonist/illustrator based in Toronto, Canada who has been working in the Animation business, for 20 years now. His company – Flying Dutchman Studios, Inc., has provided creative services for various projects in Advertising, Marketing, and Comic-Books. In 2003, Rich published a sketchbook of his work WANG-DANG-DOODLE! He is also the moderator… Read More Visions of an Icon: Wolverine by Rich Dannys


Tranquil seclusion located in the heart of the ASKA Adverture area!! Main level is the living area, a kitchen large enough for all your cooking needs, dining area, and living area with a gas log heater to enjoy on a cool mountain evening. The upstairs has 2 large bedrooms and full bathroom. The basement has plenty of room with a bar included for entertainment. The outside of this home has screened porch area and more wrap around decks for your enjoyment. the land with this home is gentle sloping and very useable. It also comes with an outdoor storage building to store toys or garden equipment.


What are your personal and professional goals as an artist?
What role does the contemporary musician play in the community both as a musician and as a teaching artist?
Provide at least 2 letters of recommendation from a professor or private instructor.
Recordings will be evaluated through a blind screening process.
Create individual tracks for each required excerpt.
Send all materials to education@brittfest.org. Electronic submissions only. Your inquiry will be acknowledged.


text:
Eberuku v Moyo District Local Government (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 0005 OF 2016) [2016] UGHCCD 120 (8 December 2016);
Headnote and flynote
Flynote:
Equality before the law and equal protection of the law
Have his cause heard (fair trial)
Full judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT ARUA
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 0005 OF 2016
EBERUKU PIUS ……………………………………………………… APPLICANT
MOYO DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ……………………… RESPONDENT
Before: Hon Justice Stephen Mubiru.
This is an application made under the provisions of section 36 of The Judicature Act as amended and Rules 6 (1) and (2) of The Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, S.I. No. 11 of 2001, seeking judicial review of administrative decisions taken by the respondent, by way of grant of an order of Certiorari quashing a decision taken by the respondent regarding the applicant's employment with the respondent and orders of prohibition and an injunction to prevent the respondent from taking other specified decisions regarding the same employment. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The respondent is opposed to the application and filed an affidavit in reply sworn by a one Mr. Oryono Grandfield Omonda, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Respondent.
The background is that the applicant joined service of the respondent on 1st February 2004 as a Sub-County Chief. In the year 2008, he was promoted to the position of Senior Assistant Secretary. At the time of these events, he had been posted to Aliba Sub-County, as a Sub-County Chief. On or about 20th January 2015, he was notified in writing by the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer that there was a vacant post of Principal Assistant Secretary to be filled. He was required to fill the relevant Public Service Form to be submitted to the District Service Commission in order to be considered for promotion to that position. The applicant duly filled in and submitted the form to the District Service Commission, which after considering the application, promoted him to the position of Principal Assistant Secretary, to report to the District Headquarters effective 1st July 2015.
Later, the District Service Commission received a complaint from another employee of the respondent at the level of Senior Assistant Secretary, querying the procedure through which the applicant had been promoted to the position. Upon that complaint, the District Service Commission recommended a revocation of the applicant's appointment upon which his promotion was rescinded as from 1st April 2015, he was reverted to his previous position of Senior Assistant Secretary and was posted to Laropi Sub-county. The respondent re-advertised the position of Principal Assistant Secretary. The applicant contends he is qualified for the position of Principal Assistant Secretary, was never given an opportunity to be heard by the District Service Commission before his promotion to that position was revoked. He therefore seeks an order of certiorari to quash the decision of District Service Commission revoking his promotion to the post of Principal Assistant Secretary, the decision to revert him to the position of Senior Assistant Secretary and the decision to post him to Laropi Sub-county. He further seeks orders of Prohibition and an injunction restraining the respondent from posting him to Laropi Sub-county. He finally seeks an award of general damages and the costs of the application.
The respondents oppose the application and argue that the notification of the vacancy was not sent exclusively to the applicant. When the Public Service Commission reviewed the procedure through which the applicant had been promoted, it observed that the District Service Commission had not made any shortlist of the various applicants to the position. The applicant was later given an opportunity to appear before the District Service Commission, which he initially declined but subsequently honoured whereupon the observations of the Public Service Commission were read to him. The position was re-advertised and the applicant was free to re-apply for consideration, following the correct procedure this time round.
In his written submissions, counsel for the applicant argued that the respondent followed the proper procedure when promoting the applicant to the position of Principal Assistant Secretary. He cited Part (A-g), Order 2 of The Uganda Public Service Standing Orders, (2010 edition). The procedure followed was intended to save costs and to motivate current staff who had the qualifications for the position, being the holder of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science, a Certificate in Administrative Law and a Post Graduate in Public Administration and Management. He had served the respondent for more than seven years at the time of the promotion. In revoking the promotion, the respondent violated the applicant's right to just and fair treatment in administrative decisions. In handling the complaint challenging the process of his appointment on promotion, neither the Public Service Commission nor the District Service Commission gave him a hearing or allowed him an opportunity to review the nature of the complaint. For that reason, the remedies sought should be granted to remedy the injustice caused to the applicant due to the embarrassment, suffering and mental anguish he has suffered.
Counsel for the respondent disagrees. In his written submissions, he argues that although there indeed was a vacancy and eligible officers to fill it as required by Part (A-g), Order 2 (a) and (b) of The Uganda Public Service Standing Orders, (2010 edition), but the proper procedure was not followed as required by Part (A-c), Order 11 of the Standing Orders and Regulation 26 (2) of The Public Service Commission Regulations, 1999. It was not clear as what criterion was adopted in declaring the applicant the best candidate. According to Article 166 (1) (d) of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 the Public Service Commission has supervisory powers of District Service Commissions. The Public Service Commission stipulated that the District Service Commission did not subject the applicants to any form of assessment in order to arrive at the best qualified candidate for the position. The process lacked transparency, fairness and merit. It was therefore proper that the process be rescinded and a transparent and fair process be conducted as recommended by the Public Service Commission. He prayed the court finds that the applicant is not entitled to any of the remedies sought and be pleased to dismiss the application with costs to the respondent.
According to rule 3 of The Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009, S.I. 11 of 2009, applications may be made under section 38 (2) of The Judicature Act, for orders of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or an injunction (by way of judicial review). Judicial review of administrative action is a procedure by which a person who has been affected by a particular administrative decision, action or failure to act of a public authority, may make an application to the High Court, which may provide a remedy if it decides that the authority has acted unlawfully. While it has been said that the grounds of judicial review "defy precise definition," most, if not all, are concerned either with the processes by which a decision was made or the scope of the power of the decision-maker. A public authority will be found to have acted unlawfully if it has made a decision or done something: without the legal power to do so (unlawful on the grounds of illegality); or so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have come to the same decision or done the same thing (unlawful on the grounds of reasonableness); or without observing the rules of natural justice (unlawful on the grounds of procedural impropriety or fairness). Failure to observe natural justice includes: denial of the right to be heard, the rule against actual and apprehended bias; and the probative evidence rule (a decision may be held to be invalid on this ground on the basis that there is no evidence to support the decision or that no reasonable person could have reached the decision on the available facts i.e. there is insufficient evidence to justify the decision taken).
Decisions made without the legal power (ultra vires which may be narrow or extended. The first form is that a public authority may not act beyond its statutory power: the second covers abuse of power and defects in its exercise) include; decisions which are not authorised, decisions taken with no substantive power ore where there has been a failure to comply with procedure; decisions taken in abuse of power including, bad faith (where the power has been exercised for an ulterior purpose, that is, for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power was conferred), where power not exercised for purpose given (the purpose of the discretion may be determined from the terms and subject matter of the legislation or the scope of the instrument conferring it), where the decision is tainted with unreasonableness including duty to inquire (no reasonable person could ever have arrived at it) and taking into account irrelevant considerations in the exercise of a discretion or failing to take account of relevant considerations. It may also be as a result of failure to exercise discretion, including acting under dictation (where an official exercises a discretionary power on direction or at the behest of some other person or body. An official may have regard to government policy but must apply their mind to the question and the decision must be their decision).
It may as well arise where there has been an excess of jurisdiction, including: error of law (in arriving at their decision, a decision-maker must not misinterpret the legislation under which they are acting or in any way indicate a misunderstanding of the law. Like ultra vires therefore, this ground involves persons or bodies acting beyond their lawful authority. Historically though, the term was applied to non-judicial bodies exercising legislative or administrative powers, whereas jurisdictional error was used in relation to inferior courts or tribunals exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers) or jurisdictional error (under this ground, a decision-maker must have legal authority to deal with the matter upon which they propose to make a decision) and fraud (In most cases, the sort of fraud which occurs is the falsification or suppression of evidence).
Judicial review on any of those grounds is concerned not with the merits of the decision, but rather with the question whether the public body has acted lawfully. Judicial review is not the re-hearing of the merits of a particular case, but rather the High Court reviews a decision to make sure that the decision-maker used the correct legal reasoning or followed the correct legal procedures. If the Court finds that a decision has been made unlawfully, the powers of the court will generally be confined to setting the decision aside and remitting the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration according to law.
The court ought to proceed with due regard to the limits within which it may review the exercise of administrative discretion when interfering with an administrative function of an establishment or an employer as stated in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 2 ALL ER 680: [1948] 1 KB 223, thus; - (i) illegality: which means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality: which means particularly extreme behaviour, such as acting in bad faith, or a decision which is "perverse" or "absurd" that implies the decision-maker has taken leave of his senses. Taking a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it and (iii) Procedural impropriety: which encompasses four basic concepts; (1) the need to comply with the adopted (and usually statutory) rules for the decision making process; (2)The common law requirement of fair hearing; (3) the common law requirement that the decision is made without an appearance of bias; (4) the requirement to comply with any procedural legitimate expectations created by the decision maker.
It is trite that administrative systems which employ discretion vest the primary decision-making responsibility with the agencies, not the courts. As a result, the judicial attitude when reviewing an exercise of discretion must be one of restraint, often extreme restraint, only intervening when the decision is shown to have been unfair and irrational. The principle in matters of judicial review of administrative action is that to invalidate or nullify any act or order, would only be justified if there is a charge of bad faith or abuse or misuse by the authority of its power and in matters of administrative decision making in exercise of discretion, the challenge ought to be over the decision making process and not the decision itself. The jurisdiction to decide the substantive issues is that of the authority and the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal, since it has no expertise to correct the administrative decision, but merely reviews the manner in which the decision is made. It is elsewhere said that, if a review of administrative decision is permitted, the court will be substituting its own decision without the necessary expertise, which itself may not be infallible.
It follows from this that there will be circumstances in which although a decision is not the correct or preferable decision on the facts, it will not be open to judicial review. Conversely, there may be situations where a decision is the correct or preferable one, but may be set aside because it is subject to legal error. As noted earlier, the results or outcomes of the decision-making process are not primary concerns of judicial review. In Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd: (1986) 162 CLR 24, 40-41 citing Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB, 228 the court opined;
The limited role of a court reviewing the exercise of an administrative discretion must constantly be borne in mind.It is not the function of the court to substitute its own decision for that of the administrator by exercising a discretion, which the legislator has vested in the administrator.Its role is to set limits on the exercise of that discretion, and a decision made within those boundaries cannot be impugned.
Similarly in Ridge v. Baldwin and Others [1963] 2 All ER 66 at 91, [1964] AC 40 at 96, it was observed;
a danger of usurpation of power on the part of the courts ... under the pretext of having regard to the principles of natural justice ... I do observe again that it is not the decision as such which is liable to review; it is only the circumstances in which the decision was reached, and particularly in such a case as the present the need for giving to the party dismissed an opportunity for putting his case.
Lord Brightman came to the same conclusion when in his holding at page 154 where he said:
Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.
The applicant faults the respondent for having promoted him to the post of Principal Assistant Secretary effective 1st July 2015 only suspend the promotion on 29th June 2015 and later revoke it on 1st April 2016, thereby reverting him to the position of Senior Assistant Secretary, which he held before the promotion, without affording him a hearing. He also queries the respondent's decision to have him transferred from Aliba Sub-County where he was a Sub-County Chief, to the District Headquarters upon his promotion to the position of Principal Assistant Secretary and then to Laropi Sub-county upon revocation of the promotion and resumption of his previous status of Senior Assistant Secretary. He claims that this was a violation of the applicant's right to just and fair treatment in administrative decisions.
There are some preliminary observations to be made about this application. Firstly, judicial review is ordinarily not granted where there are alternative remedies, unless the mechanisms including internal mechanisms for appeal or review and all remedies available under any other written law are first exhausted. For example in R v Lord Chancellor's Department ex parte Nangle [1992] 1 All ER 897 the applicant had been dismissed from his clerical position in the civil service. He appealed the decision to the Permanent Secretary, however the appeal was dismissed. The applicant thus sought judicial review of the decision to uphold the charges and dismiss the appeal. The department applied to dismiss the application on the ground that the conduct of disciplinary procedures in relation to Crown servants was not a matter of public law which was susceptible to judicial review since the applicant was employed by the Crown under a contract of employment and the appropriate remedy was an action for breach of contract. In addition, even if the applicant was not employed under a contract of employment there was an insufficient public law element in the dispute to justify judicial review. The court held that all the incidents of a contract of employment were present in the applicant's relationship with the Crown including offer, acceptance, consideration as well as an intention to create legal relations. Furthermore, despite the statement in para 14 of the Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code that the relationship between civil servants and the Crown was regulated by the prerogative and that civil servants could be dismissed at pleasure, it could not have been intended that the conditions relating to civil servants' appointments were to be merely voluntary. In any event, even if there was no legally enforceable contract of employment between the applicant and the Crown the mere fact that the applicant had no private law remedy did not mean that he had a public law remedy. The internal disciplinary procedures of the applicant's department arose out of his appointment and were consensual, domestic and informal, unlike an appeal to an independent body set up under the prerogative. As such, judicial review would not be an appropriate remedy since there was an alternative and more effective remedy available from an industrial tribunal.
Although contemporary jurisprudence is to the effect that applications for judicial review should be heard and determined without undue regard to procedural technicalities and that availability of other remedies is no bar to the granting of a judicial review relief, it can however be an important factor in exercising the discretion whether or not to grant the relief. I note that the applicant claims an infringement of a constitutional right guaranteed by article 42 of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 to fair treatment in administrative action, which could have been enforced by way of a suit under article 50 of the Constitution. Secondly, employment disputes are better tried by ordinary suit rather than by affidavit evidence. Courts are hesitant to resolve such disputes by way of judicial review, except where perhaps the redress sought is in respect of violations of fundamental rights arising from an employment relationship, such as the right to be heard during disciplinary proceedings.
That notwithstanding, in Re National Hospital Insurance Fund Act and Central Organisation of Trade Unions (Kenya), Nairobi [2006] 1 EA 47, Nyamu, J (as he then was) held the view that while it is true that so far the jurisdiction of a judicial review court has been principally based on the "three I's" namely illegality, irrationality and impropriety of procedure, categories of intervention by the Court are likely to be expanded in future on a case to case basis. Also in Kuria and three others vs. Attorney General [2002] 2 KLR 69 that; "this therefore implies that the limits of judicial review should not be curtailed, but rather should be nurtured and extended in order to meet the changing conditions and demands affecting the decision-making process in the contemporary society. The law must develop to cover similar or new situations and the application for judicial review should not be stifled by old decisions and concepts, but must be expansive, innovative and appropriate to cover new areas where they fit."
The court will therefore be called upon to intervene in situations where public authorities and persons act in bad faith, abuse power, fail to take into account relevant considerations in the decision making or take into account irrelevant considerations or act contrary to legitimate expectations of applicants, even where such conduct is not strictly within the purview of the "three I's." It is for that reason that the court will determine this application on its merit rather than defer it to be resolved through the available alternative remedies.
At common law, the issue of promotion is not contestable unless it is enshrined in the contract of employment detailing criteria for promotion. An employee has no legal right or entitlement to insist on promotion to the next or any higher post, except if the contract of employment explicitly spelt out the conditions regulating promotions. It is in this regard that an employee could make a claim in terms of those conditions. Therefore, if an employer refuses to apply its mind by promoting an employee, the employee has no legal right to institute an action against the employer and claim that the employer acted unfairly. For this and other reasons, it is why the State has to intervene by enacting laws to protect the rights of employees against unfair labour practices, providing meaningful legal guarantees to civil servants and doing away with arbitrariness.
According to Order 10 (d) of Part (A – a) of The Uganda Public Service Standing Orders (2010 edition), the power to appoint, confirm, discipline and remove officers from office in the public service is vested in the relevant District Service Commission in the case of Local Government staff except the Chief Administrative Officer, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Town Clerk and Deputy Town Clerk of City and Town Clerks of a Municipal Council. In the exercise of this power, District Service Commissions are under the supervision of the Public Service Commission which is empowered by Article 166 (1) (d) of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 to guide and coordinate district service commissions.
The procedure to be followed on promotions is laid down by The Uganda Public Service Standing Orders (2010 edition) the relevant provisions of which state as follows;
APPOINTMENT ON PROMOTION (A - g).
2. When recommending a public officer for promotion, the following shall be considered:-
(a) Existence of a vacancy; and
(b) Eligibility for promotion i.e existence of eligible serving officers with the required competencies and having served for a minimum of 3 years at the lower grade.
4. An officer shall not be recommended for promotion until he / she has served for a minimum of three years in his or her substantive grade.
11. A Responsible Officer must not arouse in the mind of any one of his or her staff hope of promotion which does not rest with the Responsible Officer to fulfill. This also applies to enhancement of salary without promotion, or to salary assessment on first appointment or promotion.
13. The Service Commissions may determine procedures to test suitability in terms of competencies, for the purpose of promotion to all posts in the Public Service as deemed necessary. (Emphasis added).
Responsible Officer; in relation to a public officer means the Permanent Secretary of a Ministry or a Department under which the officer is serving; or head of Department as defined in the Public Service Act. Or Chief Administrative Officer or Town Clerk of a Local Government.
The Pubic Service Standing orders do not prescribe the procedures and criteria to be used in determining the suitability in terms of competencies, the person to be promoted. This is left to the respective District Service Commissions to determine. In the instant application, none of the parties furnished court with any authoritative source which guided the respondent's District Service Commission in considering the applicant for promotion. In absence of evidence of such procedures and criteria laid down by the respondent, the court proceeds on the assumption that the respondent's District Service Commission has not formulated or issued any.
The intention of framers of the Public Service Standing Orders in leaving the determination of procedures to test suitability in terms of competencies for the purpose of promotion is clearly that these decisions are to be made on merit in accordance with definite rules, instructions etc., which should be considered and treated as part of the terms and conditions of service of a public servant. Such decisions cannot be made capriciously or subjectively. Decisions on tenure, appointment, promotion and posting / transfer are of utmost importance in the public service. Such decisions should be entrenched and cemented in publicly available rules, instructions, policies etc. providing for an appointment process which is clearly defined, to assure quality, effectiveness and morale of the public service. There is also a public interest in the process for the appointment of public officers being clearly defined in that it is through transparency that the maintenance of the standing of the public service as a service of the State and not the service of any transient interests can be achieved. Potential candidates too need to know what the process is. Such regulations are intended to provide a self-contained, comprehensive structure governing promotions within the service. Transparency is likely to eliminate decision making based on considerations other than merit. To permit District Service Commissions to waive parts of the process when they think it appropriate would have the potential to create an uncertain and unequal playing field and to undermine the independence and efficiency of public service.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Corruption of Hajj Arrangements' case (PLD 2011 SC 963) clarified that even where there are no explicit rules governing the appointment process, and appointments are to be made in the exercise of discretionary powers, such discretion must be employed in a structured and reasonable manner and in the public interest. Appointing authorities cannot be allowed to exercise discretion at their whims, or in an arbitrary manner; rather they are bound to act fairly, evenly and justly and their exercise of power is judicially reviewable. Further in Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132), the same court clarified that, when called upon to do so, the Courts are "duty bound to examine the integrity of the selection process", although they "will not engage in any exhaustive or full-fledged assessment of the merits of the appointee nor [...] seek to substitute [their] own opinion for that of the Executive." It was noted in that case that just like the appointment of civil servants, their removal and dismissal from service has not been left to anyone's whims and caprice. It is governed by rules and regulations, indeed, the anachronistic concept where government servants held office during the pleasure of the Crown had no place in a dispensation created and paid for by the people. Consideration of an officer for promotion is to be based not only on the relevant law and the rules (if any) but also is to be based on some tangible material relating to merit and eligibility which can be lawfully taken note of.
All state authority is in the nature of a "trust" (see objective XXVI. (i) of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 regarding "Accountability"). Its bearers should therefore be seen as fiduciaries. Matters of tenure, appointment, posting, transfer and promotion of public servants, being an exercise of state authority, cannot be dealt with in an arbitrary manner. Decisions in that respect can only be sustained when they are in accordance with the law and established procedures. According to the "Applicability" section at page xiv of The Uganda Public Service Standing Orders (2010 edition), "all public officers are bound by the Standing Orders" where the Definitions Section at page xxi defines a "Public officer" as having the meaning assigned by articles175 (a), and (b) of The Constitution, that is; "any person holding or acting in an office in the public service... in any civil capacity of the Government the emoluments for which are payable directly from the Consolidated Fund or directly out of monies provided by Parliament " as well as article 257 (1) (x) and (y) of The Constitution where it means "a person holding or acting in any public office," and where public service means "service in a civil capacity of the Government or of a local government." In absence of any guidelines made or issued by the respondent's District Service Commission regarding procedures to test suitability in terms of competencies for promotions within the service, resort then must be made to the minimum framework provided for by The Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009, S.I No. 1 of 2009 whose relevant provisions provide as follows;
26. Vacancies.
(1) Where a vacancy occurs or it is known that a vacancy shall occur in any public office in any Ministry or department, the responsible officer shall notify the Secretary of the vacancy upon clearance by the responsible Permanent Secretary.
(2) If the responsible officer recommends that such vacancy should be filled by the appointment or promotion of an officer serving in the Ministry or Department in which the vacancy has occurred or shall occur, he or she shall, when reporting the vacancy to the Secretary—
(a) forward a list of all senior eligible officers in that Ministry or Department who are available to fill the vacancy, together with the records of their service in the public service;
(b) recommend one of those officers to fill the vacancy; and
(c) where his or her recommendation involves the supersession of an officer senior to the officer so recommended, give his or her reasons for recommending such supersession.
(3) If the responsible officer does not recommend that the vacancy should be filled by the appointment or promotion of an officer serving in the Ministry or department in which the vacancy occurs or shall occur, he or she shall when reporting the vacancy to the Secretary—
(a) report to the Secretary the names of the most senior officers serving in the particular cadre or grade from which the promotion would normally be made and state his or her reasons why he does not consider that the officers named are suitable for promotion to fill the vacancy; and
(b) forward to the Secretary a draft advertisement setting out the details of the vacant post and the duties and qualifications attached to it.
From the above provisions, it is evident that an applicant for promotion is already an employee and must have been involved in various issues that would probably impact on whether he or she should be promoted or not. There are various reasons that may motivate for either a promotion of an employee or not, for example; - it could be as a result of the commitment of the employee, leading to attainment of set goals, the person's employment history, record of performance, skills and qualifications, the objective of service delivery improvement, availability of vacancies, availability of resources and other factors. Therefore, promotions can only be made on the basis of objective criteria such as "merit" and "seniority / fitness."
The task of those administering promotions is to see and ensure that there is fairness and justice in the exercise or the process. A person entrusted with discretion must direct himself or herself properly in law and established evaluative criteria. He or she must call his or her own attention to the matters which he or she is bound to consider. He or she must exclude from his or her consideration matters which are irrelevant to the decision he or she has to make. The court will generally leave to the District Service Commission the decision as to what evaluative criteria should be used, how they should be weighted, and how they should be applied. The court will focus its attention instead on the fairness of the procedures adopted and whether similarly situated candidates for promotion were treated equitably. Rarely will a court overturn a negative employment decision because the criteria were unclear but will most readily do so where the procedures were biased.
For example the case of Mecklenberg v. Montana State Board of Regents 13 FEP 462, 13 EPD 1 1438 (1976) the plaintiffs challenged the promotion and tenure review procedures at Montana State University, calling them arbitrary because they were not standardized, and discriminatory because women were excluded from the review process. The trial court agreed, saying that the decision, procedures and criteria were so imprecise that they permitted decision makers to use "a number of vague and subjective standards... [and that] there [were] no safeguards in the procedure to avert sex discriminatory practices" (1976, p. 6495). In its order, the trial court required the university to completely overhaul its governance and peer review process to make it more democratic and more objective.
Generally, if a District Service Commission uses fair procedures and can articulate a plausible, non-discriminatory reason for reaching the decision it did, the court will not interfere. Whereas matters relating to promotions cannot be put in a strait-jacket and flexibility is inevitable, if however, rules and instructions are deviated from in what appears to be an abuse of discretion and as a result merit is discouraged on account of favouritism or considerations other than merit, it should be evident the public service will not remain independent or efficient and in that case there would be a justification for judicial review. The balance between the competing pulls of discretion and rule based decision making is a fine one where perception of fairness and even handed treatment is of utmost importance, hence the need to follow guidelines.
Standing Order 15 (c) of Part (A – a) of The Uganda Public Service Standing Orders (2010 edition), provides that the responsible permanent Secretary shall be responsible for, ".....drawing the attention of Responsible Officers to any acts of commission or omission discovered in their respective Ministries, Departments or Local Governments for corrective action." In the instant application, the burden lay on the applicant to prove that from the point when existence of the vacancy of Principal Assistant Secretary was declared to the District Service Commission going forwards, his promotion was compliant with the process, if any, laid out by the District Service Commission as mandated by para 13 of part A-g of the Public Service Standing Orders. The burden lay on the applicant to prove a prima facie case of compliance with the procedural requirements of promotion before the court could examine whether or not there was any illegality or irrationality involved in the respondent's subsequent revocation of that promotion.
The legal framework for the expected minimum steps in that process, as provided by regulation 26 of The Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009, required the Chief Administrative Officer, when reporting the vacancy of Principal Assistant Secretary to the District Service Commission and recommending that it should be filled by the appointment or promotion of an officer serving with the respondent, to forward a list of all senior eligible officers in the respondent's service who are available to fill the vacancy, together with the records of their service in the public service and to recommend one of those officers to fill the vacancy. Furthermore, to give his reasons for recommending supersession, if the recommendation involved the supersession of an officer senior to the officer so recommended.
From the facts available, the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer rather than send a list of all eligible officers, instead recommended six eligible Senior Assistant Secretaries to the District Service Commission. There is no evidence that he specifically recommended any single individual, let alone the applicant, out of the list of six candidates, as required by the regulation. It is not clear as well whether or not he submitted the records of their service alongside the names. When the Public Service Commission received an appeal against this process through which the applicant had been promoted to the position of Principal Assistant Secretary, by its letter dated 2nd June 2015 addressed to the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer and referenced DSC 33/95/01 Vol. 3, it commented as follows;
.....the appeal was presented to the Public Service Commission for consideration during its meeting held on Friday 22nd May, 2015.
During deliberations, Members observed that: -
On 11th November 2014, your office made a submission to the District Service Commission recommending six (6) eligible Senior Assistant Secretaries for consideration for promotion to the post of PAS, Scale U2.
Although all the six candidates possessed the required qualifications for appointment on promotion to Principal Assistant Secretary, the District Service Commission did not subject them to any form of assessment to arrive at the most suitable candidate.
The decision to appoint Mr. Eberuku Pius on promotion to Principal Assistant Secretary was, therefore, subjective and not guided or based on any scientific process. It lacked transparency, fairness and merit.
The whole promotional exercise was handled in an irregular manner without following the laid down procedures on promotion.
In view of the above, the appeal against the appointment of Mr. Eberuku Pius on promotion to the post of Principal Assistant Secretary, Scale U2 was accepted.
Members further decided that Moyo District Service Commission be advised to: -
Rescind the appointment of Mr. Eberuku Pius on promotion to the post of Principal Assistant Secretary, Scale U2 and repeat the whole exercise by conducting it in a more transparent manner by following established principles, rules, regulations and laid down procedures governing recruitment in the Public Service.
Always adhere to the established recruitment procedures for the Public Service when handling promotional exercises
The purpose of this letter is to communicate the decision of the Public Service Commission on the appeal and to request you to cause the DSC to take appropriate action as advised.
In making this recommendation, the Public Service Commission was exercising its power under article 166 (1) (d) of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 which authorises it to guide and coordinate District Service Commissions. The Public Service Commission in essence recommended that the District Service Commission adopts rule-based management practices in accordance with the letter and spirit of applicable laws and rules in its processes of promotions. This was not a directive but rather advice given to the District Service Commission which the latter was expected to follow, not as an order from a superior authority but instead with the knowledge that the exercise of powers by the District Service Commission in derogation to the direction of law to whose attention it had been drawn, would amount to disobeying the command of law, fairness and transparency in its processes of promotions.
Poor recruitment, selection and promotion decisions in the public service not only give rise to costly grievances, complaints, disputes, litigation and discontentment, but also put a strain on the entire system due to a poor post and person match, resulting in unnecessary redeployment of human resource to uphold productivity. It is not a surprise therefore that the District Service Commission opted to follow the advice, and revoked the applicant's promotion by its minute No. DSC/23/2016 which was communicated to the applicant in a letter written by the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer on 21st March 2016. The applicant contends that both the Public Service Commission and the District Service Commission violated his right to a fair hearing when the former gave the advice and the latter adopted the advice to revoke his appointment on promotion, to the post of Principal Assistant Secretary.
The right to a fair hearing is presumed to apply to public bodies when performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions only. In coming to the decisions they did, both the Public Service Commission and the District service Commission were performing administrative functions in a purely policy-oriented, traditionally administrative sphere of decision-making as opposed to a quasi-judicial function. Both in performance of that function realised that the applicant had assumed that office as a result of a process that was devoid of detailed policies and procedures in place to inform the objective, fair, equitable, consistent and responsible promotion and selection practices; a process where the framework standardised methods and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the statutorily prescribed values and principles as well as national norms and standards regulating human resource in the public service were not followed; where the latter Commission had not adverted to any skills, competencies, training and traits or similar criteria it required from candidates that vied for the vacant post before appointing the applicant; and where the latter Commission did not have proof of having properly determined valid selection criteria and applied them consistently nor structured their selection processes in accordance with such criteria. The decisions taken by the Public Service Commission and the District Service Commission not having been quasi judicial or disciplinary in nature, the applicant had no right to a hearing before they were taken.
Although there is no right to a hearing with respect to bodies charged with performing purely administrative functions, not of a quasi-judicial nature, in a purely policy-oriented, traditionally administrative sphere of decision-making, however, when arriving at decisions with potentially serious adverse effects on someone's rights, interests or status in exercise of a purely administrative power, an administrative authority has a duty to act fairly which is a less onerous duty than that of observing the rules of natural justice demanded of such bodies when they act in a quasi-judicial capacity, such as when they undertake disciplinary proceedings.
The duty to act fairly is specifically applicable to decisions that are likely to have serious adverse effects on someone's rights, interests or status. This duty to act fairly is flexible and changes from situation to situation, depending upon: the nature of the function being exercised, the nature of the decision to be made, the relationship between the body and the individual, the effects of that decision on the individual's rights and the legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision (see Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (S.C.C.). That the doctrine of natural justice, as a legal doctrine which requires an absence of bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), could be applied to administrative decision making not of a quasi-judicial nature was first allowed in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 in which the House of Lords found that the Brighton police authority which had dismissed its Chief Constable (Charles Ridge) without offering him an opportunity to defend his actions, had acted unlawfully (ultra vires) in terminating his appointment following criminal proceedings against him. In some situations, decision makers will be required to observe a high standard of participatory rights guaranteed by the audi alteram partem rule and due process. The purpose of the participatory rights in such situations is to ensure that administrative decisions are made using a fair and open procedure, appropriate to the decision being made and its statutory, institutional and social context, with an opportunity for those affected to put forward their views and evidence fully and have them considered by the decision-maker. In Wood v Woad, L.R. 9, Kelly. C.B. it was held that the audi alteram partem rule "is not confined to the conduct of strictly legal tribunals, but is applicable to every tribunal or body of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences to individuals," and further in Fisher v Keane, 11 Ch. D. 353 at 363 by Lord Jessel, M.R., that "clubs, or by any other body of persons who decide upon the conduct …. ought not, as I understand it, according to the others, to blast a man's reputation for ever, perhaps to ruin his prospects for life, without giving him an opportunity of either defending or palliating his conduct." Furthermore, according to the decision in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (S.C.C), it was decided that the duty of fairness owed in such circumstances is more than minimal, and the claimant and others whose important interests are affected by the decision in a fundamental way must have been given a meaningful opportunity to present the various types of evidence relevant to their case and have it fully and fairly considered.
In determining whether the respondent in this case met that standard, it must be borne in mind that even though in administrative processes certain ways and methods of judicial procedure may very likely be imitated, and that lawyer-like methods may find especial favour from lawyers, but the judiciary should not presume to impose its own methods on administrative or executive officers (see Local Government Board v. Arlidge, [1915] A.C. 120). The respondent was free, within reason, to determine its own procedures, adapted to suit the nature of the complaint and the circumstances of the case. It would be wrong, therefore, to ask of the respondent, in the discharge of its administrative duties, to meet the high standard of technical performance which one may properly expect of a court. All that is required is for the respondent to have done its best to act justly, and to reach just ends by just means, i.e. acting honestly and by honest means. The nature of this standard was explained in De Verteuil v Knaggs and Another [1918] A.C. 557, as "a duty of giving to any person against whom the complaint is made a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement which he may desire to bring forward and a fair opportunity to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice." A high standard of justice is required only when the right to continue in one's profession or employment is at stake (see Abbott v Sullivan [1952] 1 K.B. 189).
The issue that was before the Public Service Commission and subsequently the District Service Commission for determination regarded the fairness, transparency and lawfulness of the process through which the applicant had been promoted to the office of Principal Assistant Secretary. It had nothing to do with the suitability of the applicant for that office nor were there any allegations of wrongdoing levelled against him. The complaint addressed structural defects in the process rather than any suspected personal deficiencies of the applicant. There does not appear to be any value that would have beeen added to determination of such an issue by hearing from the applicant first. The decision by both Commissions in the circumstances, taken without hearing from the applicant first therefore does not appear to be so irrational, unreasonable or procedurally improper as to warrant the intervention of this court.
On the other hand, the right to a fair hearing is designed to safeguard legitimate individual rights and interests, in respect of persons to whom such action relates, that might materially and adversely be affected by acts, omissions or decisions of any person, body or authority. Such must be legal rights or interests. There are many rights that arise from a contract of employment, but promotion is not one of them, it is more of a privilege than a right. Suitability for promotion is a discretion exercised by the appointing authority, the District Service Commission in this case. That discretion must be exercised in accordance with the requirements of the Public Service Act, the Public Service Standing Orders, and any other relevant legislation, rules, guidelines and principles. Where the determination of suitability for promotion depends on exercise of discretion of the appointing authority, promotion cannot exist as a matter of right but rather as a prerogative of the employer, exercisable as and when the circumstances favour a decision to that effect. Therefore, unlike a decision whether or not to terminate employment, where employment rights will materially and adversely be affected by leaving employment, hence the right to a fair hearing, with a decision whether or not to promote an employee there is no corresponding right to a hearing because the employee remains in the employment, with no material or adverse repercussion of such a magnitude as would require a hearing.
Be that as it may, in seeking judicial review of the decision taken in the circumstances of this application where the right sought to be asserted sprung from a process that fundamentally deviated from the accepted or rule-based norm in matters of promotion in the public service without proper justification, the applicant seeks to invoke the powers of court to legitimise a process where there was no apparent screening and short-listing, a process that was unfair to other equally qualified candidates, which is not only flawed and open to criticism, but also possibly did not produce the desired results. Positions in the public service being matters of public interest, the application inevitably has to be tested on the touchstone of the manifest public interest in the process for the appointment of public officers being clearly defined, fair, equitable and transparent so that the public service may be maintained as an independent service of the State rather than any transient interests.
The discretion to promote a public servant is to be exercised, and exercised only, in accordance with such a process. It is not a discretion that may be exercised arbitrarily and without accountability. The Public Service Commission took issue with a process where no screening criteria appear to have been applied in the selection process. The District Service Commission by its subsequent conduct appears to have admitted this error. In order to be fair and objective in the screening of candidates, it is essential that a fixed set of valid criteria be applied in terms of each and every candidate that applies for a position, in order to identify the most suitable candidate. This ensures that the person or body entrusted with the screening of candidates does so in a responsible, objective and accountable manner. This does not appear to have been the case in the instant application. The applicant cannot use judicial review as a means to perpetuate himself in a position attained through a fundamentally flawed process that was conducted in a manner that is contrary to public interest. The situation in this application is akin to one that may give rise to the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio ("from a dishonourable cause an action does not arise"). Even if a promotion may be regarded as an interest for the employees, no legitimate enforceable interest may arise from an appointment process conducted contrary to public policy. It is the duty of this court to promote equal opportunity in public service employment by eliminating unfair discrimination in any recruitment or promotion policy or practice. To grant this application would be to act to the contrary and against public policy.
The applicant further claims to have been treated unfairly. The right to fair treatment in administrative action is a guarantee that every person has the right to administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. It may also include the right to be given reasons for any administrative action that is taken against a person, where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person. Having resolved that the circumstances of this application did not confer upon the applicant the right to be heard but rather the right to fair treatment, the right to fair treatment in administrative action nevertheless guaranteed him the right to be given reasons for the administrative action that was taken by the District Service Commission, to the extent that it adversely affected his "assumed" promotion.
The evidence before me shows that the respondent invited the applicant to meet its District Service Commission on 14th January 2016 by a letter dated 7th January 2016. The purpose indicated in the letter was to "brief you on the proceedings of appeal made against your recruitment as Principal Assistant Secretary..." On the 22nd January 2016, the applicant responded that he had received the communication late on 22nd January 2016 and had by that date already been advised by his lawyer "to seek alternative means to respond to your call at an appropriate time." In paragraph 6 of the affidavit in reply, the respondent avers that the applicant appeared at a later date whereupon the advice given by the Public Service Commission to the District Service Commission was read to him by the Secretary of the District Service Commission. The District Service Commission thereafter by its minute No. DSC/23/2016 revoked the promotion which decision was communicated to the applicant in a letter written by the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer on 21st March 2016. The Court is concerned with evaluating fairness as Lord Hailsham L. C. ably puts it in Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans, [1982] 1 W. L. R. 1155 at 1160;
It is important to remember in every case that the purpose ... is to ensure that the individual is given fair treatment by the authority to which he has been subjected and that it is no part of that purpose to substitute the opinion of the judiciary or of individual judges for that authority constituted by law to decide the matters in question.
It is my considered view that he was given fair treatment by this process which satisfied his right to be given reasons for the administrative action that was taken against his promotion. Moreover, if the applicant enjoyed any right to a fair hearing before the decision to revoke the promotion was taken, that right was respected as well by that process considering the manner in which the decision was taken, after he was given an opportunity to appear before the District Service Commission and hearing from him. I have therefore not found any reason justifying issuance of an order of certiorari regarding the decision to revoke the applicant's promotion to the post of Principal Assistant Secretary and reversion to the position of Senior Assistant Secretary. I consider that claim to be misconceived reasons wherefore the prayer is rejected.
Lastly, the applicant contends that he deserves an order of certiorari, prohibition and an injunction to quash and restrain the respondent from posting him to Laropi Sub-County and from advertising the post of Principal Assistant Secretary. Apart from the claim that his right to be heard was not respected when the impugned decisions were made, which has already been decided to be a misconceived position, he has not advanced any other justification for the orders sought. The guidelines to be followed when public officer is to be transferred from one Local Government to another (and presumably from one duty station to another within the same Local Government) when need arises are specified by Standing Order 2 of part (F - c) of The Uganda Public Service Standing Orders (2010 edition) as follows; -
(a) Posting must always be justified on genuine administrative considerations;
(b) Postings must never be used as a punitive measure; and
(c) Postings must be carried out in accordance with deployment plans.
There is nothing before me to suggest that the applicant's posting to Laropi Sub-County was done in violation of those guidelines. To justify grant of the orders sought, it was incumbent upon the applicant to show that his posting to Laropi Sub-County was a negative employment decision that was motivated by discrimination rather than by evaluation of his qualifications, administrative considerations and deployment plans of the respondent. In such a case, the applicant would have been expected to assert that, "but for" the use of an illegal criterion for the decision (such as his sex, origin, religion, age, retaliation or as a punitive measure), the decision would have been positive, which would have required the court to examine the decision to ascertain what criteria were used to make the decision and whether they were applied fairly in this case.
Alternatively, the court may have intervened if there were averments that in taking that decision, the respondent had failed to comply with a mandatory and material procedure or condition prescribed by an empowering provision; that the decision was procedurally unfair; that it was materially influenced by an error of law; that it was taken with an ulterior motive or purpose calculated to prejudice his legal rights; that the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations; that the respondent acted on the direction of a person or body not authorised or empowered by any written law to give such directions; that the decision was made in bad faith; that the decision is not rationally connected to- (i) the purpose for which it was taken; (ii) the purpose of the empowering provision; (iii) the information before the respondent; or (iv) the reasons given for it by the respondent, or such similar grounds. Since the applicant has not advanced any averments of that nature, there is no basis for intervening in what is otherwise a purely administrative decision of the respondent.
The respondent's decision to advertise the post too has not been impugned on any sustainable grounds. The process through which the applicant was promoted having been found to be fundamentally flawed, it was necessary to start afresh, this time in compliance with the framework legal structures in place. It is unfortunate the the applicant decided not to participate in that process but in my view it is a process that has been undertaken in satisfaction of the public interest in ensuring that public offices are occupied or filled through a fair, even and justly applied, transparent process. There is no justification from granting injunctive relief in the circumstances.
The Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the District Service Commission and the Chief Administrative Officer. The limit of the authority of court in judicial review is first to establish whether or not there was illegality, irrationality or impropriety in the process, whereupon if established it may then proceed to direct the District Service Commission and the Chief Administrative Officer to comply with the legal and procedural requirements but not to substitute, its own decision for that of the District Service Commission and the Chief Administrative Officer. In determining whether administrative action is justifiable in terms of the reasons given for it, value judgments will have to be made which will, almost inevitably, involve the consideration of the 'merits' of the matter in some way or another. As long as the Judge determining this issue is aware that he or she enters the merits not in order to substitute his or her own opinion on the correctness thereof, but to determine whether the outcome is rationally justifiable, the process will be in order. I have not found any of such reasons warranting this courts intervention.
In the final result, there is neither a basis for issuing the orders sought nor for the award of damages. This application is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated at Arua this 8th day of December 2016. …………………………………..
Stephen Mubiru
Judge.
Oyaro v Kitgum Municipal Council (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE No. 0007 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 40 (13 September 2018);
Okello v Kyambogo University & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.23 OF 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 97 (16 August 2018);
Tusiime v Kampala Capital City Authority (CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 276 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 67 (4 April 2017);
Nkunyingi-Ssembajja v Secretary, Public Service Commission & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 82 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 74 (30 April 2020);
Thugitho v Nebbi Municipal Council (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0015 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 94 (20 July 2017);


Buying the right mattress is the most crucial element when considering buying a brand-new bed. This is your sleeping area and will have an effect on the support and amenities of the bed.
It is frequently difficult to discover a store that offers a range of bedroom sets, such as Pulaski or Stanley bedroom sets. When you have a style in mind it is frequently difficult to discover a store that offers a range of bedroom sets, such as Pulaski or Stanley bedroom sets.
Well, if not, then it is time you should think about various other options. Many of the standard bedroom sets are made from wood. Consisted of in the set is a dresser, a mirror table and a couple of nightstands. Although wood is long enduring, there are already bedroom sets that are made from various other materials which has multifunction. Do you wish to buy bedroom furniture for your children? A boy would have a different taste with a lady so see to it that the theme and the color of the bedroom is suited for your child. If you have a child then see to it that the bedroom furniture has a non-toxic finish and the crib should be safe enough. If you have a teenager, then the bedroom furniture should be created to fit his needs. There should be at least a book case, a study table and a couple of chairs. Bedroom sets could differ in dimension and styles. The materials and the things that are included in the set may also vary depending upon the needs of the consumer. Remember, the bedroom is not just the place for sleeping. It is also the perfect place to unwind and unwind a little.
These bedding sets are the most optimal covers for the comforters because they not just protect the tidiness of the comforters but likewise are a great method to refurnish your bedroom You can likewise check out their collections from the online bedding shops. The online shops likewise have a broad variety of collections of these bedding sets.
Various other types of mattresses like the conventional innerspring, memory foam, visco-elastic are substantially various from the Talalay latex mattresses. A latex mattress can be categorized under foam mattresses however it provides a different and special sleeping experience compared to various other mattresses under the foam group. Latex mattresses have springtime backs which are operating actively if youre asleep.