For nearly two decades, the Applicant’s was enrolled as a student of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA). Upon the introduction of a new student progression policy, all ACCA students were required to complete their courses within seven years of passing their examinations. The Applicant did not pass one module within the permitted timeline under the new policy. He petitioned ACCA through email correspondences, reconsideration requests and ongoing engagement to reconsider
his position and permit him to pass the course. This request was denied. When the matter finally reached the High Court, the central question was not whether ACCA had correctly applied its examination expiry rules, but whether a litigant who has spent years pursuing an internal resolution can still seek judicial review after the prescribed timelines have expired.

In Robinson Kalanzi v The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Miscellaneous Cause No. 0014 of 2025, a ruling delivered by Hon. Justice Bonny Isaac Teko on 27 th February 2026, the High Court considered the extent to which continued engagement with a professional training institution may justify delay in commencing judicial review proceedings. The decision offers important guidance on what constitutes “good reason” for extending time and the point at which internal engagement must give way to litigation.

AF Mpanga Advocates represented ACCA in successfully opposing the application.

Background

The Applicant had been enrolled since 1997 and sought to challenge ACCA’s examination expiry rules. He alleged that ACCA had retrospectively applied various examination validity requirements, including the seven-year and ten year rules, resulting in the premature expiry of his examination passes. He further contended that ACCA had issued inconsistent communications regarding the status of his examinations over several years.

The Applicant maintained that he had engaged ACCA in the hope that the institution would reconsider its position and permit him to pass his outstanding examination. However, on 13 th July 2024, ACCA communicated that it would maintain its earlier position. The Applicant subsequently sought leave to commence judicial review proceedings outside the three month period prescribed by the Judicature
(Judicial Review) Rules.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the Applicant had demonstrated good reason to warrant extension of time for filing a judicial review application.
2. Whether the remedies sought in the intended judicial review proceedings were available.
   

Resolution

The Court first dismissed a preliminary objection arising from the Applicant’s reliance on an incorrect statutory provision. Reaffirming the principle that procedural errors should not defeat substantive justice, the Court held that citation of the wrong law was not fatal where the Court otherwise possessed jurisdiction and the substance of the application was clear.

Turning to the substantive application, the Court reiterated that an applicant seeking extension of time must establish sufficient reason for the delay and that the Court’s discretion must be exercised judiciously. In determining whether to extend time, the Court considered:

• the length of the delay;
• the reason for the delay;
• the prospects of success of the intended proceedings; and
• Prejudice is likely to be suffered by the opposing party.

Justice Teko accepted that engagement with a decision maker may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a satisfactory explanation for delay. The Court therefore accepted that the Applicant’s efforts to secure reconsideration of ACCA’s decision explained much of the period preceding ACCA’s final communication in July 2024.

However, the Court held that this justification could not continue indefinitely. Once ACCA unequivocally communicated its final position on 13 th July 2024, the Applicant was on notice that any further challenge would have to be pursued through the courts. The Applicant failed to provide any explanation for the approximately six-month period between that final communication and the filing of the application in January 2025. The Court found this omission fatal to the application.

Although the Court considered the Applicant’s proposed judicial review grounds to be arguable, including allegations of retrospective application of rules, legitimate expectation and procedural unfairness, it emphasized that prospects of success cannot cure an unexplained delay. The application was therefore dismissed.

Significance of the Decision

A noteworthy feature of the decision is that the application failed despite the Court’s acknowledgment that the intended judicial review challenge was arguable. The Applicant was not asking the Court to award him ACCA qualifications or determine whether he had passed the requisite examinations. Rather, he sought to challenge the legality and fairness of ACCA’s decision making process, alleging retrospective application of examination expiry rules, breach of legitimate expectation arising from ACCA’s communications, and procedural unfairness. The Court therefore had to balance two competing considerations: the Applicant’s claim that ACCA had acted unfairly and the equally important public interest in certainty and finality of litigation.

The decision emphasizes the need to act promptly when seeking judicial review of administrative action. Under the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2019, an application must be filed within three months of the impugned action, although the Court may extend time where sufficient cause is shown. It clarifies that engagement with an administrative, regulatory or professional body may justify delays where a party is actively pursuing internal review or reconsideration mechanisms. However, that justification is not open ended. Once a final decision is communicated, a litigant must act promptly and cannot indefinitely rely on
previous engagement to explain continued inaction.

This was not the case of a litigant who had simply abandoned his rights. The Applicant had remained engaged with ACCA for many years and appears to have genuinely believed that the matter could still be resolved through continued correspondence and internal engagement. One can understand why he may have considered litigation a last rather than a first resort. The ruling nevertheless emphasizes that a litigant who elects to pursue dialogue and internal engagement assumes the risk that time may continue to run once a definitive decision has been communicated.

At the same time, the Court was confronted with an equally important consideration. If prolonged engagement alone were sufficient to suspend procedural timelines indefinitely, there would be little certainty as to when disputes truly come to an end. The decision therefore reflects the Court’s preference for finality once a definitive position has been communicated, even where the underlying complaint may be capable of serious argument.

The Court also made an important observation regarding the amenability of professional bodies to judicial review. Although not determinative of the application, it observed that ACCA is recognized under the Accountants Act and operates within a statutory framework in Uganda. The Court clarified that ACCA is a regulated institution under statute and consequently, its decisions are susceptible to judicial review.

The ruling serves as a reminder that judicial review is as much about timing as it is about legality. A potentially meritorious challenge may still fail where a litigant cannot establish sufficient cause why they did not seek court intervention sooner.

Authored by:
Rachel Asaba (Senior Associate) & Amos Mumbere, (Junior Associate)