Court dismisses petition to block reappointment of Eng. Twinomujuni

KAMPALA. The high count in Kampala has dismissed a petition seeking to halt the service of Eng John Mary Vianney Twinomujuni, the Commissioner for Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Services.
Court ruled that Eng. Twinomujuni’s stay in office pending a final decision by the appointing authority — President Museveni — was lawful and justified due to his specialised expertise.


The case was filed by Atuhairwe B, described as a law-abiding citizen interested in good governance, who argued that Eng. Twinomujuni’s continued presence in office after clocking the mandatory retirement age of 60 on July 13, 2025, was illegal, unconstitutional, and detrimental to career progression for other officers.

The applicant also sought to restrain Public Service Ministry head, Lucy Nakyobe, Water Ministry Permanent Secretary Alfred Okidi, and the Attorney General from processing or awarding Eng. Twinomujuni a fresh three-year contract.


Justice Collins Acellam, in a detailed ruling, said the dispute originated from the government’s decision to allow Eng. Twinomujuni to continue serving “as an administrative measure to ensure continuity of leadership in the directorate pending a final decision by the Appointing Authority.”

The State Attorney, Danielle Amucu, told court that the President had permitted the temporary extension because of Eng.Twinomujuni ’s specialised skills and institutional experience critical to ongoing national water and sewerage projects.


The judge observed that while the petitioner raised legitimate questions about post-retirement appointments, he failed to demonstrate “any imminent threat of illegality that would render the main application nugatory if the interim order is not granted.”

“There is no evidence of a final or irreversible decision that would prejudice the applicant’s rights before this court has had the opportunity to determine the main application,” Justice Acellam ruled.
He added that the 1st respondent’s stay was “an administrative measure pending the President’s final determination,” and that halting his work would “frustrate ongoing public projects in the water and sewerage sector, which is against public interest.”


Citing the Supreme Court precedent in Yakobo Senkungu & Others vs Cerensio Muiasa (2013), Justice Acellam said interim injunctions are “discretionary remedies to preserve the status quo only in cases of extreme urgency requiring quick relief.”
He concluded: “There is no substantial evidence of imminent danger or irreparable harm… I find no compelling reasons for me to grant the orders sought.”


The High Court consequently dismissed the petition with no order as to costs, affirming that the substantive case challenging the legality of Eng. Twinomujuni’s reappointment would proceed separately for full hearing.

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *