Karugaba v Attorney General - CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004

Case No: 
Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2004
Media Neutral Citation: 
[2006] UGSC 9
Judgment Date: 
1 August 2006
AttachmentSize
9.rtf0 bytes

 

17


 

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT MENGO

 

(CORAM: ODOKI, CJ, ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA AND KATUREEBE, JJ.SC.)

 

CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004

 

BETWEEN

 

PHILLIP KARUGABA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANTS

 

AND

 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

 

{Appeal from the decision of the Constitutional Court (Okello, Mpagi-Bahigeine, Engwau, Kitumba and Byamugisha JJ.A) dated 4th April 2003 in Constitutional Appeal No. 11 of 2002}

 

 

JUDGMENT OF ODOKI, CJ

 

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Kanyeihamba JSC, and I agree with him that this appeal has no merit and should be dismissed. I concur in the order he has proposed as to costs.

 

As the other members of the Court also agree, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

Dated at Mengo this ……1st ……… day of …August………… 2006

 

 

 

B J Odoki

CHIEF JUSTICE

 

 

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT MENGO

 

(CORAM: ODOKI,CJ., ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA AND KATUREEBE.JJ.S.C).

 

CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL No.No.1 OF 2004

 

BETWEEN

 

PHILLIP KARUGABA ] ………………………… APPELLANT

 

AND

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL ] ………………………………… RESPONDENT

 

[Appeal from the decision of the Constitutional Court at Kampala,

(Okello, Mpagi-Bahigeine, Engwau, Kitumba and Byamugisha, JJ.A),

dated 4th April, 2003 in Constitutional Petition No.11 of 2002]

 

JUDGMENT OF TSEKOOKO, JSC

 

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Kanyeihamba, JSC, and I agree that this appeal ought to fail. I agree with the proposal that there should be no order as to costs.

 

Delivered at Mengo this………………….day of……………2006.

 

 

J.W.N.Tsekooko

Justice of the Supreme Court

 

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT MENGO

CORAM : (ODOKI, CJ, ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA,

MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA AND KATUREEBE, J.JSC.)

CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2004

 

B E T W E E N

 

PHILIP KARUGABA: :::::::::: :::::::::: .APPELLANT

 

AND

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENT: ::::::::: :::::::::: RESPONDENT

 

(Appeal from the decision of the Constitutional Court of Kampala [Okello, Mpagi-Bahigeine, Engwau, Kitumba and Byamugisha, JJA] dated 4th April 2003 in Constitutional Petition No.11 of 2002).

 

 

JUDGMENT OF KAROKORA, JSC:

 

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Kanyeihamba, JSC, and I agree that this appeal ought to fail. I also agree with him that there should be no order as to costs.

 

Delivered at Mengo this: . . . . . . . day: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 2006.

 

 

 

 

  1. N. KAROKORA.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

 

 

 

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT MENGO

 

(CORAM: ODOKI, C.J., ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA, KATUREEBE, J.J.S.C.)

 

CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004

 

BETWEEN

 

PHILIP KARUGABA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT

 

AND

 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

 

(Appeal arising from the decision of the Constitutional Court (Okello, Mpagi-Bahigeine, Engwau, Kitumba, Byamugisha, J.J.A.) dated 4th April, 2003 in Constitutional Petition No. 11/2002).

 

 

JUDGMENT OF KANYEIHAMBA, J.S.C.

The appellant who is a practising advocate filed a petition in the Constitutional Court seeking a declaration that “Rule 15 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petition for Declarations under Article 137 of the Constitution Directions 1996, is inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution.” The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

The appellant who appeared in person and represented himself has appealed to this court and filed a Memorandum of Appeal containing seven grounds framed as follows:

  1. The Learned Judges erred in law in holding that a right to petition the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution did not constitute property of such a petitioner under Article 26(2) of the Constitution.

  2. The Learned Judges erred in law in holding that the existence of an alternative remedy to the deceased petitioner, Joyce Nakachwa, precluded the rights of her estate to pursue the constitutional petition.

  3. The Learned Judges erred in law in failing to recognize that by reason of limitation, the deceased petitioner’s action under the Law of Torts was time-barred.

  4. The Learned Judges erred in law in invoking the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act without giving the Appellant an opportunity to address the Court on it.

  5. The Learned Judges erred in law in holding that the Appellant should have filed an appeal against the ruling of the Court in Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2001 JOYCE NAKACHWA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  6. The Learned Judges erred in law in holding that the action of Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2001 JOYCE NAKACHWA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL should have proceeded in the High Court as an action for the enforcement of fundamental human rights under article 50 of the Constitution.

  7. The Learned Judges erred in law in holding that the Appellant had no interest in the matters complained of in CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO.2 OF 2002 JOYCE NAKACHWA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL as to entitle him to bring the current petition under appeal.

The Attorney General was represented by Miss. Margaret Apiny who was and assisted by Mrs. Nabukizza, both Senior State Attorneys.

The appellant stated that he had been counsel for one Joyce Nakachwa, now deceased who was a sole petitioner in Constitutional Petition No.2 of 2001 before she died. When her death came to the knowledge of the Constitutional Court, which was then hearing the said petition, the court ruled that “Rule 15(1) of Legal Notice No.4 of 1966 is crystal clear. The petition abates by the death of a sole petitioner.”

Mr. Karugaba abandoned ground 3 of the appeal. The substance of Mr.