Sarah Anena v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 0033 of 2021)
The full judgment
Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 petitioner challenged the first respondent's restriction of direct membership of the Institute to members of accounting societies within the East African Region as ultra vires. At the hearing the court struck out the wrongly-joined second respondent, granted leave to add the Attorney General, and directed the petitioner to file and serve an amended petition by 25 November 2024, with responses and any rejoinder to follow. The petitioner did not comply with these directions. The court held that this failure amounted to a failure to prosecute the petition and accordingly dismissed it for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs. The court did not determine the substantive constitutional question.
Facts
The petitioner, Sarah Anena, brought a constitutional petition alleging that the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda acted ultra vires by restricting direct membership of the Institute to members of accounting societies from within the East African Region. The first and third respondents opposed the petition on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action, and the second respondent (the Minister of Finance) contended that it raised no matter for constitutional interpretation. When the petition came up for hearing on 18 November 2024, the court found that the second respondent had been wrongly joined and that the Attorney General had not been made a party. It struck out the second respondent, granted leave to amend by adding the Attorney General, and gave directions for filing and serving the amended petition, responses, and any rejoinder, and for a scheduling conference. The petitioner did not comply with any of these directions.
Issues
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the petitioner failed to comply with the court's directions to file and serve the amended petition.
Orders
- The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 137(1), (3)(a), (3)(b), (4)
- Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, 2005