Wakilii

Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Consitutional Petition 14 of 1997)

Constitutional Court · [1998] UGCC 2 · 1998 Petition Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections to a constitutional petition seeking declarations and compensation for alleged human rights violations
Decision
Petition struck out with costs to the respondents

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 court upheld three preliminary objections and struck out the petition. The petitioner had no cause of action against the first respondent, whose only role was the lawful arrest, nor against the Attorney General, because section 4(5) of the Government Proceedings Act exempts the Government from liability for acts of a judicial officer, and that exemption applies to both ordinary civil suits and constitutional matters. The petition raised no question of constitutional interpretation under Article 137, so the court lacked jurisdiction; redress lay under Article 50 in another competent court. Treating detention as a continuing wrong, time ran from release on 22 October 1997, and the petition lodged on 24 November 1997 was filed outside the thirty-day limit.

Facts

On 5 September 1997 the petitioner was arrested by an official of Kampala City Council and taken the same day to a Magistrate Grade II's Court at Kampala City Hall, where he was charged with obstructing a police officer contrary to section 106 of the Penal Code Act. He pleaded guilty, was convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. On appeal to the Chief Magistrate at Buganda Road, the conviction was set aside on the ground that he had been convicted of a non-existent offence, and he was released from prison on 22 October 1997. He then petitioned the Constitutional Court for declarations that the respondents' acts were inconsistent with the Constitution and violated his fundamental rights, and sought compensation of shs. 5,000,000 per day for the 50 days he was detained. The prosecution had been conducted by an officer from the office of the DPP and the conviction pronounced by a court established under the Magistrates' Courts Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the petitioner had a cause of action against Kampala City Council and the Attorney General.
  2. Whether the Government can be made liable under section 4(5) of the Government Proceedings Act for acts of a judicial officer, including in constitutional matters.
  3. Whether the petition raised a question requiring interpretation of the Constitution so as to fall within the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction under Article 137.
  4. Whether the petition was time barred under rule 4(1) of the enforcement procedure rules.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections upheld.
  • Petition struck out.
  • Costs to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Administrative Law — Government Liability — Acts of Judicial Officers
Section 4(5) of the Government Proceedings Act exempts the Government from liability for anything done or omitted by a person while discharging responsibilities of a judicial nature, and this exemption applies equally to ordinary civil suits and to constitutional matters.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Proper Parties to a Constitutional Petition
A constitutional petition cannot be sustained against a party who bears no responsibility for the acts complained of; where a council official's only role was to effect a lawful arrest, no cause of action arises against the council.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137
The Constitutional Court's jurisdiction is confined to matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution under Article 137; where no question of interpretation arises, the court has no jurisdiction and redress must be sought under Article 50 in another competent court.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Time Limit for Constitutional Petitions
A constitutional petition must be lodged within thirty days after the breach of the Constitution complained of under rule 4(1) of the Modifications to the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules; a petition filed outside that period is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Detention as a Continuing Wrong
Unlawful detention is a continuing wrong, so the cause of action accrues on the date the detainee is released, and time for filing runs from that date.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 128(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 21(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(7)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(12)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 25(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 31(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 31(5)
  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 69) s.4(5)
  • Judicature Statute s.48(1)
  • Penal Code Act s.106
  • Modifications to the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1992 Directions 1996 rule 4(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Olwoch [1972] EA 392
  • Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No.2) [1978] 2 All E.R. 670
  • Serapio Rukundo v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 3 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
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.