The High Court in Kampala has ruled in favour of law student Samantha Mwesigye in a landmark case against Uganda Christian University, finding that the institution acted irrationally and unfairly when it refused to recognise her transferred academic credits from King’s College London and later required her to repeat first-year law courses at the end of her studies.
Justice Bernard Namanya, delivering judgment on 12 June 2026, declared that the university’s conduct was “tainted by irrationality and procedural impropriety” and amounted to a breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation.
The court awarded Mwesigye UGX 100 million in general damages plus interest at 25% per annum.
Background to the dispute
Mwesigye had completed her first year of the Bachelor of Laws programme at King’s College London before being admitted in 2022 to continue her studies at Uganda Christian University based on “transfer of credits.”
Her admission letter, signed by the university’s Director of Academic Affairs, expressly stated she was admitted based on “Transfer of Credits.”
However, after four years of study and with graduation expected in July 2026, the university informed her that she was required to undertake four additional course units: Introduction to the Bible, Legal Writing, Fundamentals of Criminal Law, and Constitutional History. She was also told she needed a certificate of equivalence from the National Council for Higher Education.
Mwesigye, represented by Ferdinand Tumuhaise of Kampala Associated Advocates, challenged the decision through judicial review, arguing it was illegal, irrational, procedurally unfair, and violated her legitimate expectation that her credits had already been accepted.
The university, represented by Samuel Kiriaghe of MRK Advocates, maintained that her admission had been conditional and that she was always required to complete the additional courses and obtain certification from the National Council for Higher Education.
Justice Namanya noted that the admission letter “expressly states that the admission of the applicant was based on ‘Transfer of Credits’,” rejecting the university’s attempt to argue that she had been admitted based on secondary school qualifications.
The court also dismissed the university’s attempts to rely on oral explanations that contradicted the written admission letter, holding that such evidence could not override a formal written document.
The judge found that the university’s conduct met the legal threshold of irrationality, quoting that an irrational decision is one “so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind could have arrived at it”
The court held that the university had consistently treated Mwesigye as a student whose credits were valid, allowing her to progress through the programme, contest guild elections, and even be introduced as “awaiting graduation” only to reverse its position at the end of her studies.
“The respondent recognised the applicant’s transfer of credits… but later and without rational basis purported to withdraw that recognition in 2026 when the applicant was on the verge of graduation” the judge stated in his ruling
The court also found serious procedural impropriety, noting that the university failed to issue any formal written decision explaining the credit dispute.
It further ruled that the former guild president had a legitimate expectation that her credits would be recognised, based on the admission letter and the university’s conduct over four years.
“The respondent cannot, at the final stage of her studies, impose new academic obligations inconsistent with its earlier representation,” the judge ruled.
The university had argued that a certificate of equivalence from the National Council for Higher Education was mandatory under institutional policy frameworks.
However, the court rejected this argument, holding that policy documents do not have the force of law unless backed by statute. It further found that even the cited policies did not expressly require such certification.
Costs of the suit were awarded to the plaintiff.
