The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a judicial review application filed by Kisoro District Youth Committee Chairperson John Bosco Tuyizere, who accused the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) and the National Youth Council of unlawfully distributing government-funded heifers to unintended beneficiaries.
In a ruling delivered on June 15, 2026, Acting Justice Simon Peter M. Kinobe found that the dispute raised by Tuyizere concerned questions of entitlement and alleged mismanagement of a government poverty-alleviation programme, matters that fall outside the scope of judicial review.
Related posts
The application was filed by John Bosco Tuyizere, the elected Chairperson of the District Youth Committee of Kisoro District.
The respondents were: the National Agricultural Advisory Services Organisation (NAADS); and the National Youth Council.
Tuyizere was represented by Bigirwaruhanga and Atim Advocates, while NAADS was represented by its legal team from the Secretariat.
The Dispute
According to court records, the dispute stemmed from a presidential initiative aimed at improving household food security and incomes among youth leaders through the distribution of heifers.
Tuyizere told court that in 2022, NAADS received government funding to procure and distribute 2,286 heifers.
He claimed that, following consultations between NAADS, the National Youth Council and youth Members of Parliament, a policy was adopted identifying beneficiaries as district and city youth council chairpersons, secretaries for finance, secretaries for gender, and youth leaders at municipal and division levels.
He alleged that although youth leaders had undergone training and verification processes, the programme was later marred by corruption and abuse of office.
According to his application, heifers intended for youth leaders were instead distributed to NAADS employees, Members of Parliament, UPDF soldiers, ghost beneficiaries and other persons who were not part of the intended target group.
Tuyizere further claimed that after raising complaints about the alleged irregularities, his own name was removed from the list of beneficiaries.
He asked the court to declare the respondents’ actions illegal and irrational, compel them to recover the allegedly misallocated animals, account for all distributed heifers, and provide him with the heifer he claimed he was entitled to receive.
NAADS’ Defence
NAADS denied the allegations and maintained that the programme had been implemented lawfully.
In an affidavit sworn by Livestock Development Officer Thomas Nsemerirwe, the agency argued that it had not distributed heifers to fraudulent beneficiaries. Instead, it said some recipients belonged to other beneficiary categories covered under its broader agricultural interventions.
NAADS further maintained that the distribution exercise was ongoing and conducted within its statutory mandate. The agency also contended that Tuyizere’s heifer had already been purchased and remained available for collection, but that he had neglected or refused to receive it.
The organisation argued that it was subject to audits by the Auditor General and asked the court to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.
Court’s Findings
Justice Kinobe first considered whether the matter was suitable for judicial review proceedings.
The judge noted that judicial review is intended to examine whether a public body acted lawfully, rationally and in accordance with proper procedures, rather than determine the merits of a decision or adjudicate private rights.
The court held that both NAADS and the National Youth Council are public bodies whose decisions may be challenged through judicial review.
However, the judge found that Tuyizere had failed to prove any of the recognised grounds required for judicial review.
On the allegation that respondents acted illegally by diverting heifers away from youth leaders, the court observed that the applicant relied heavily on an alleged policy governing beneficiary selection but failed to produce the policy document before court.
Justice Kinobe ruled that without evidence of the policy’s contents, the court could not conclude that the respondents had acted outside their legal mandate.
The judge further noted that distributing livestock to farmers and other beneficiaries fell squarely within NAADS’ statutory functions under the National Agricultural Advisory Services Act.
Regarding claims that the distribution exercise was unreasonable or irrational, the court found that Tuyizere had not produced sufficient evidence to show that he had been removed from the beneficiaries’ list or that those who received the heifers were ineligible.
The judge emphasised that civil claims must be proved on a balance of probabilities and that the burden rests on the person making the allegations.
The court concluded that determining whether specific beneficiaries were entitled to the animals would require a substantive hearing with evidence, rather than judicial review proceedings.
Justice Kinobe also found that the applicant had failed to identify or prove any procedural irregularity in the manner the programme was implemented.
The court noted that neither the application nor the accompanying affidavits presented evidence showing that established procedures had been breached.
In his final determination, Justice Kinobe held that the dispute essentially concerned allegations of mismanagement of a youth poverty-alleviation programme and competing claims regarding who was entitled to receive the heifers.
Such issues, he ruled, involve substantive rights and factual disputes that cannot be resolved through judicial review.
“The Applicant seeks to frame the matter as mismanagement of a youth poverty-alleviation programme, hinging on the determination of who was entitled to the heifers and proof that the eventual beneficiaries were not entitled,” the judge stated.
He added that judicial review focuses on the legality and fairness of administrative decision-making processes rather than the correctness of decisions themselves.
The court consequently dismissed the application and awarded costs to NAADS and the National Youth Council.
ENDS.
English 