Wakilii

Eddie Kwizera v Electoral Commission and Another (Constitutional Application No. 04 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 402 · 2023 Application Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to commit for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of Constitutional Court orders in Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2018
Decision
Application struck out with costs to the respondents on both preliminary objections

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Constitutional Court heard an application to commit the Electoral Commission's Chairman for contempt of orders made in Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2018. It upheld two preliminary objections. First, proceedings against the Chairman were barred by section 49 of the Electoral Commission Act, which immunises commission members from civil liability for functions performed in good faith; the applicant had not pleaded bad faith, and on a rejection-of-pleading application the court looks only to the pleadings. Second, the application was an abuse of process and frivolous because it was filed prematurely, before the one-year period the Commission had been given to comply had expired, so no contempt could yet have occurred. The application was struck out with costs.

Facts

In Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2018, the Constitutional Court on 27 December 2019 nullified parliamentary elections in six municipalities and ordered the Electoral Commission, within one year, to file evidence of Parliament's prescription of constituencies, and within ten months, evidence of demarcation of boundaries. On 17 March 2020, three months after that judgment, the applicant filed this application seeking committal of the Commission's Chairman for contempt, a fine, and a halt to election preparations, alleging the Commission had disregarded the orders. The Commission had appealed and obtained a Supreme Court stay of execution on 4 June 2020; the Supreme Court later confirmed the Constitutional Court's decision on 6 January 2022. The application was not served until February 2023 and was heard in March 2023. At the date of filing, the periods for compliance had not expired, and by the hearing the Commission had filed the required evidence of prescription and demarcation of constituencies.

Issues

  1. Whether the proceedings against the 2nd respondent are barred by section 49 of the Electoral Commission Act, which immunises a commission member from civil liability for acts done in good faith.
  2. Whether the application for contempt is an abuse of court process and frivolous and vexatious, having been filed before the time allowed for compliance with the court's orders had expired.

Orders

  • The first preliminary objection is upheld and the application struck out as against the 2nd respondent with costs.
  • The second preliminary objection is upheld and the application struck out for being an abuse of court process and frivolous.
  • The application is struck out with costs to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Rejection of Pleadings — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Suit barred by law decided on pleadings alone
In determining whether a suit is barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court looks only to the statements in the pleading and no evidence may be considered.
Electoral Law — Immunity of Commission Members — Section 49 Electoral Commission Act — Pleading bad faith
A member of the Electoral Commission is not personally liable to civil proceedings for any act done in good faith in performing commission functions; a party suing such a member must plead bad faith in unambiguous terms, failing which the proceedings are barred.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Premature application — Abuse of process
An application to commit a party for contempt of a court order is an abuse of court process where it is filed before the time allowed for compliance with the order has expired, since no contempt can have occurred.
Civil Procedure — Frivolous and Vexatious Pleadings — Order 7 Rule 11(e)
A pleading that is frivolous or vexatious may be struck out under Order 7 Rule 11(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the assessment relies only on the facts pleaded, with no evidence being admissible.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 Rule 23
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 Rule 11(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 Rule 11(e)
  • Electoral Commission Act s.49
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.20
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.60
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.61(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.63(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.63(6)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.294

Cases cited (6)

  • Kamala & Ors vs K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors. Appeal (civil) No. 3038 of 2008
  • James Mundele Sunday v Pearl of Africa Tours & Travel Ltd (Civil Suit No. 89 of 2011)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Cambell-Edward Co. vs Gomez, 136 S.ct.663, 669 (2016)
  • Kamba Samuel & 2 Others vs The Electoral Commission & Attorney General
  • Eddie Kwizera v Attorney General and Electoral Commission (Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2018)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.