Uganda’s insurance regulator has been plunged into fresh uncertainty after the High Court stopped the process of appointing a substantive Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA), handing a significant legal victory to former CEO Kaddunabbi Ibrahim Lubega in a bitter dispute over his non-renewal.
In a ruling delivered on June 29, 2026, Justice Joyce Kavuma issued an interim injunction halting any further steps to substantially fill the position of Chief Executive Officer until the court determines Lubega’s substantive application challenging the Board’s decision not to recommend him for a second five-year term.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in a high-profile governance battle at one of Uganda’s key financial sector regulators, with the court finding that allowing the recruitment process to continue could render Lubega’s legal challenge meaningless.
At the heart of the dispute is a February 16, 2026 decision by the IRA Board, chaired by Dr. Nkote Isaac Nabeta, declining to recommend Lubega to the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development for reappointment as CEO despite his eligibility for another term under the Insurance Act and the Authority’s Human Resource Management Manual.
Lubega, whose five-year contract ran from June 1, 2021 until May 31, 2026, contends that the Board denied him a fair hearing before deciding against recommending his reappointment and that the decision violated his legitimate expectation of being fairly considered for a second term.
In his application before the High Court, Lubega sought urgent intervention to restrain the Authority from implementing the Board’s decision and from forcing him onto leave pending the hearing of his application for a temporary injunction. He argued that without court protection, his statutory rights would be irreparably prejudiced and the main case would become academic.
The Insurance Regulatory Authority strongly opposed the application.
Through its Director Legal and Secretary, the Authority argued that Lubega’s contract had already expired by operation of law on May 31, 2026 and that there was no existing employment relationship left for the court to preserve. The Authority further informed court that the Minister of Finance had already appointed an Acting Chief Executive Officer effective June 1, 2026, insisting that an interim injunction could not revive an expired employment contract.
Former Board Chairman Dr. Nkote Isaac Nabeta also rejected Lubega’s claims, maintaining that he had acted in good faith while carrying out his fiduciary duties and insisting there was nothing left for court to preserve after the expiry of Lubega’s contract.
The legal battle also exposed allegations of contempt of court.
Lubega’s lawyers accused the Authority of disregarding an earlier administrative order issued by the High Court on May 29, 2026 by proceeding with the appointment of an Acting CEO and directing him to take over office. They argued that the respondents should not even be heard until they had purged their alleged contempt of court.
However, Justice Kavuma rejected that argument, holding that the alleged acts amounted to indirect contempt because they were committed outside the presence of the court.
The judge ruled that such allegations could only be determined through separate contempt proceedings where the accused parties would have an opportunity to defend themselves, making it improper to determine the issue within the injunction application itself.
The respondents had also argued that Lubega’s application had been overtaken by events because an Acting CEO had already assumed office and the recruitment process had advanced.
Justice Kavuma disagreed.
The judge held that the process of appointing a substantive CEO had not yet been completed because the Minister had not made a final decision on the Board’s recommendation.
“The events that happened on 01/06/2026 are the first steps in a continuous process which has not ended,” the judge ruled, rejecting the argument that the application had become moot.
The court equally dismissed arguments that Lubega had accepted and later sought to challenge the recruitment process.
Justice Kavuma found no evidence that Lubega had accepted the outcome of the investigations or the Board’s decision and concluded that the legal doctrine of approbation and reprobation did not apply in the circumstances.
Turning to the merits of the application, the court found that Lubega had successfully established all the conditions necessary for the grant of an interim injunction.
First, the court confirmed that a substantive application challenging the Board’s decision was already pending before the High Court.
Secondly, Justice Kavuma held that Lubega had demonstrated a real and imminent threat to his rights.
The judge observed that although the Board had recommended against renewing Lubega’s contract, the statutory appointment process remained incomplete because the Minister had not yet exercised powers under Section 20 of the Insurance Act.
According to the ruling, the actions already taken by the respondents following June 1, 2026 threatened Lubega’s right to a fair administrative process and risked rendering his substantive application meaningless if not restrained.
The court acknowledged that while an Acting CEO had already been installed and an injunction could not reverse events that had already occurred, the law still permitted preservation of the remaining stages of the recruitment process.
Justice Kavuma noted that the current status quo included the existence of an Acting CEO and therefore declined to interfere with that arrangement. However, she distinguished between maintaining the acting arrangement and allowing recruitment of a substantive CEO to continue.
The judge accepted Lubega’s argument that the Permanent Secretary’s actions allegedly usurped powers legally reserved for the Minister and that the recruitment process remained incomplete.
She concluded that preserving the remaining stages of the process was necessary to protect the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
“The rights of the applicant to a just and fair process need to be protected until this court determines the substantive application such that the main application is not rendered nugatory,” Justice Kavuma ruled.
The court further found that the balance of convenience favoured Lubega because he stood to suffer irreparable harm if the recruitment proceeded before determination of the substantive case.
Consequently, Justice Kavuma issued an interim injunction stopping the process of substantially filling the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Regulatory Authority until the substantive application is heard and determined.
The judge also directed that Lubega’s application for a temporary injunction and the main judicial review proceedings be heard beginning June 30, 2026, with costs to abide the outcome of the case.
The ruling temporarily freezes one of the most consequential leadership transitions in Uganda’s financial regulatory sector and leaves the Authority under the stewardship of an Acting CEO while the High Court determines whether the Board lawfully handled Lubega’s bid for a second term.
The outcome of the substantive judicial review could have far-reaching implications not only for Lubega’s future but also for how statutory boards conduct executive recruitment and renewal processes across government agencies, particularly where legislation prescribes consultation and ministerial approval before appointments are finalized.
