The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a high-profile case in which a Kisoro youth leader accused the National Agricultural Advisory Services Organisation (NAADS) of diverting government-funded heifers meant for youth leaders to politicians, soldiers, staff members and alleged ghost beneficiaries.
In a ruling delivered on June 15, 2026, Justice Simon Peter Kinobe threw out the application filed by John Bosco Tuyizere, the Chairperson of the Kisoro District Youth Committee, after finding that he had failed to provide evidence proving corruption, illegality or abuse of office in the controversial livestock distribution programme.
Tuyizere had dragged NAADS and the National Youth Council to court seeking declarations that the distribution of heifers under a presidential directive was illegal and irrational.
He also wanted the court to compel NAADS to recover animals allegedly given to wrong beneficiaries, account for all distributed heifers and hand him the heifer he claimed was denied to him.
Allegations of Corruption and Diversion
According to court records, the dispute stemmed from a presidential initiative launched around 2021 to improve household incomes and food security among youth leaders through the distribution of heifers.
Tuyizere claimed that government allocated funds to NAADS to procure 2,286 heifers for youth leaders across the country. He argued that an agreed policy provided that beneficiaries would include district and city youth council chairpersons, secretaries for finance and gender, as well as municipal and division youth council leaders.
However, he accused NAADS officials of abandoning the original plan and instead distributing the animals to their own employees, Members of Parliament, UPDF soldiers and even non-existent beneficiaries.
The youth leader further alleged that after he complained about the alleged abuse of the programme, his own name was removed from the beneficiaries’ list.
In his court filings, Tuyizere described the distribution exercise as being characterised by “enormous corruption and impunity,” arguing that the programme had been hijacked by individuals who were never intended to benefit.
NAADS Fires Back
NAADS strongly rejected the accusations.
Through its Livestock Development Officer, Thomas Nsemerirwe, the agency told court that no heifers had been diverted to unintended beneficiaries.
The organisation maintained that some of the people appearing on the contested lists belonged to other categories of beneficiaries ordinarily supported under NAADS programmes and interventions.
NAADS also made a revelation that significantly weakened Tuyizere’s case: the agency informed court that the applicant’s own heifer had already been purchased and remained available for collection, but that he had allegedly neglected or refused to receive it.
The agency further argued that it is already subject to audits by the Auditor General and therefore operates within established accountability mechanisms.
Court Finds No Evidence
While Justice Kinobe agreed that the matter was suitable for judicial review because it involved public bodies exercising administrative functions, he found that Tuyizere failed to prove any of the three key grounds required in judicial review proceedings: illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
One of the biggest blows to the applicant’s case was his failure to produce the very policy document upon which his allegations were based.
The judge noted that Tuyizere repeatedly claimed that NAADS and youth leaders had adopted a policy restricting beneficiaries to specified youth officials, yet the alleged policy was never attached to the court pleadings.
“Court cannot rule illegality based on a document not adduced by the party who intends to rely on the same,” Justice Kinobe held.
The court consequently found that NAADS had acted within its statutory mandate when distributing the livestock.
Justice Kinobe ruled that determining whether the distribution was fair, oppressive or improperly implemented would require a full conventional civil suit involving evidence and witness testimony rather than a judicial review application.
Claims Against MPs and Soldiers Collapse
The court also examined Tuyizere’s allegations that MPs, UPDF officers, State House operatives and ghost beneficiaries had received the animals.
Although the accusations painted a picture of a programme riddled with favouritism and corruption, the judge concluded that no credible evidence had been presented to substantiate them.
The ruling notes that while the applicant alleged his name had been removed from the beneficiaries’ register, he provided no documentary proof showing that he had actually been struck off the list.
“The applicant does not provide any cogent evidence of his removal from the list of beneficiaries,” the judge observed.
The court further accepted NAADS’ explanation that the institution serves diverse categories of beneficiaries beyond youth leaders and that inclusion of other groups did not automatically amount to illegality.
Judicial Review Not the Right Battlefield
In what could become an important precedent for future public-interest litigation, Justice Kinobe emphasised that judicial review is not designed to determine who is right or wrong in disputes over entitlement to government benefits.
Instead, the judge said judicial review only examines whether public authorities acted lawfully, rationally and fairly in reaching their decisions.
Questions regarding who deserved the heifers, whether beneficiaries were wrongly selected or whether the programme was mismanaged concern substantive rights that must be determined through ordinary civil proceedings rather than judicial review.
The court found that the entire case revolved around allegations of mismanagement and entitlement, issues that fall outside the limited scope of judicial review.
Case Dismissed With Costs
Having found no proof of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, Justice Kinobe dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered Tuyizere to pay the costs of the case.
The ruling effectively hands NAADS a significant legal victory and leaves unanswered the broader political questions raised by the allegations regarding the distribution of the 2,286 heifers under the presidential poverty-alleviation initiative.
For now, the court’s message is clear: allegations of corruption, ghost beneficiaries and political favouritism, however serious, must be backed by concrete evidence before they can survive judicial scrutiny.
