A High Court judge has delivered a stinging rebuke to Uganda Christian University (UCU), ordering the institution to pay Shs100 million in damages to a law student after finding that the university unfairly attempted to impose new academic requirements on her just months before graduation.
In a ruling delivered on June 12, 2026, Justice Bernard Namanya ruled in favour of Samantha Mwesigye, a Bachelor of Laws student who transferred to UCU from King’s College London, finding that the university acted irrationally, unfairly and in breach of her legitimate expectations when it sought to reject credits it had effectively accepted for four years.
The judgment exposes what the court described as a troubling pattern of inconsistency by one of Uganda’s leading private universities, which admitted Mwesigye in 2022 on the basis of transferred credits but later attempted to force her to undertake four additional courses and obtain a certificate of equivalence from the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) at the very end of her studies.
The dispute
Mwesigye completed her first year of a law degree at King’s College London before transferring to UCU in August 2022.
Her admission letter expressly stated that she had been admitted on the basis of “Transfer of Credits.”
Based on that admission, she was allowed to join Semester II of Year One and continued through the law programme without interruption.
However, after spending four years studying at UCU and preparing for graduation in July 2026, she was suddenly informed that she would be required to complete four additional course units.
The courses included Introduction to the Bible, Legal Writing, Fundamentals of Criminal Law and Constitutional History.
University officials also demanded that she obtain a certificate of equivalence from NCHE for the credits earned at King’s College London.
The unexpected demands threatened to derail her graduation plans and potentially affect her future academic and professional ambitions, including enrolment at the Law Development Centre.
Court tears apart UCU’s defence
During the proceedings, UCU attempted to argue that Mwesigye had actually been admitted on the basis of her secondary school qualifications and that she had always been aware that additional requirements remained outstanding.
Justice Namanya was unimpressed.
The judge pointed to the university’s own admission letter, which explicitly stated that the admission was based on transfer of credits.
“The respondent cannot retract from that position,” the judge ruled.
He further rejected affidavit evidence from senior university officials that sought to contradict the written admission letter.
In one of the most damaging findings against the university, the court noted that oral explanations by officials could not override the clear wording of an official written document.
The judge concluded that Mwesigye had indeed been admitted on the basis of transferred credits from King’s College London.
“Arbitrary, unjust and abuse of power”
The court found it extraordinary that UCU waited until the student had completed virtually her entire degree programme before raising concerns about her academic status.
Justice Namanya observed that if the university genuinely believed she had failed to meet admission conditions, it should have addressed the matter years earlier.
Instead, UCU allowed her to progress from Year One to Year Four without taking any corrective action.
The judge described the university’s conduct as “arbitrary, unjust, and amounts to abuse of power.”
According to the ruling, the institution effectively led Mwesigye to believe that her transferred credits had been accepted and recognised.
The court found that UCU’s sudden reversal on the eve of graduation defied logic and basic principles of fair administration.
Guild President controversy
One of the most embarrassing aspects of the case for UCU involved Mwesigye’s successful election as Guild President.
The court noted that UCU’s own rules required transfer students seeking the guild presidency to have satisfactory academic records, including acceptable transferred credits.
Despite now claiming that there were unresolved problems with Mwesigye’s academic record, the university had vetted and cleared her to contest for the top student leadership position.
She subsequently served as Guild President.
Justice Namanya found this conduct fundamentally inconsistent with the university’s later position that her transferred credits remained unresolved.
“If there had indeed existed unresolved questions concerning the applicant’s academic record,” the judge observed, “the applicant would not have been cleared at all to participate in the guild elections.”
Internship letter exposes contradiction
The court also highlighted another glaring contradiction.
In April 2026, while the dispute was already brewing, UCU issued a formal introduction letter supporting Mwesigye’s internship placement at the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
The letter described her as a student “awaiting graduation.”
Justice Namanya noted that such a representation was impossible to reconcile with the university’s later argument that she lacked essential academic requirements.
“If the transfer of credits had never been validly recognised, there would have been no proper basis upon which to present her to the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs as a student awaiting graduation,” the court ruled.
WhatsApp message instead of official decision
The judge was equally critical of how UCU handled Mwesigye’s complaints.
After she wrote detailed letters seeking clarification about her academic status, the university failed to provide a formal written response.
Instead, according to evidence accepted by the court, the Vice Chancellor communicated the university’s position through a WhatsApp message.
Justice Namanya described it as remarkable that such a serious academic matter was handled through an informal messaging platform rather than an official university communication.
The court found that UCU never properly documented its decision or gave Mwesigye a meaningful opportunity to challenge it.
Legitimate expectation violated
A central pillar of the judgment was the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
The court held that by admitting Mwesigye on transferred credits, allowing her to study uninterrupted for four years, clearing her for guild elections and presenting her as a student awaiting graduation, UCU created a legitimate expectation that her academic status had been fully regularised.
The university’s conduct consistently signalled that her transferred credits had been accepted.
Justice Namanya ruled that UCU could not suddenly reverse course at the final stage of her studies without a compelling justification.
The court found no such justification existed.
Shs100 million award
Although Mwesigye sought Shs200 million in damages, the court settled on Shs100 million.
Justice Namanya held that the university’s conduct caused significant inconvenience, uncertainty, emotional distress and disruption to the student’s academic progression.
The court ordered UCU to pay:
- Shs100 million in general damages.
- Interest at 25 percent per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- The full costs of the case.
Wider implications
The ruling is likely to send shockwaves through Uganda’s higher education sector.
Justice Namanya emphasised that universities retain authority over academic policies and awards but cannot exercise those powers arbitrarily.
The judgment warns educational institutions that they must communicate admission requirements clearly and in writing from the outset.
Universities that admit students on transferred credits, allow them to progress for years and then attempt to revisit those decisions at graduation risk being accused of irrationality, procedural impropriety and abuse of power.
For UCU, the ruling represents a costly legal defeat and a public rebuke of its administrative processes.
For students across Uganda, it stands as a powerful reminder that universities are not above the law when making decisions that affect academic futures.
