Wakilii

Lubuye Kibuka v Electoral Commission and Another (Constitutional Petition 8 of 1998)

Constitutional Court · [1998] UGCC 4 · 1998 Reference Answered — Provision Held Constitutional ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional reference from the High Court under Article 137 of the Constitution, arising from an election petition challenging a Local Council Chairperson election
Decision
Section 143(2) of the Local Government Act declared not inconsistent with the Constitution; the matter remitted to the trial judge to continue hearing the election petition.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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

On a reference under Article 137, the Constitutional Court held that section 143(2) of the Local Government Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution. Although the section itself provides no mechanism to extend the three-month period, section 173 imports the Parliamentary Elections law, including rule 19 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996, which empowers the court to enlarge time. The trial judge therefore had jurisdiction to extend time, and doing so would not offend Makula International Ltd: that authority bars only the use of residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge statutory time where no enactment or rule confers a discretion to do so.

Facts

Following the Kalangala District Council elections, the second respondent was declared the elected LC V Chairperson by the Electoral Commission. The petitioner challenged the result in Election Petition No. 12 of 1998 in the High Court. After leave was granted to hear the petition during the court vacation, the hearing began on 10 August 1998. Counsel sought adjournments, and a question arose whether the petition could be heard and determined beyond the three-month period prescribed by section 143(2) of the Local Government Act. The trial judge considered that, on the authority of Makula International Ltd, he had no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge time fixed by statute. Both parties and the court took the view that, insofar as section 143(2) limits the time within which the matter must be determined, it might be inconsistent with the Constitution. The High Court accordingly referred to the Constitutional Court the question whether section 143(2) is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether section 143(2) of the Local Government Act, which requires an election petition to be heard and determined within three months, is inconsistent with the Constitution.
  2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to enlarge the time fixed by section 143(2) of the Local Government Act for hearing and determining an election petition.

Orders

  • Section 143(2) of the Local Government Act is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.
  • The High Court had jurisdiction to enlarge the time laid down in section 143(2).
  • The matter is sent back to the trial judge to carry on with the hearing of the petition.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Time Limits — Enlargement of Statutory Time
A court has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period of time laid down by statute or rule only where there is no statutory provision or rule conferring a discretion to extend or abridge that time; where such a provision or rule exists, the court may extend the time in the exercise of that conferred jurisdiction.
Statutory Interpretation — Filling a Lacuna — Incorporation by Reference
Where a provision of the Local Government Act (s.143(2)) is silent on the extension of time, section 173 imports the Parliamentary Elections law in force, including rule 19 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996, to fill the lacuna and empower the court to enlarge time.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Three-Month Hearing Period under s.143(2)
Section 143(2) of the Local Government Act, requiring an election petition to be heard and determined within three months, is not inconsistent with the Constitution because the court retains a conferred discretion under section 173 and rule 19 to enlarge the period where the petition cannot be completed within time.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Local Government Act 1997 s.139
  • Local Government Act 1997 s.143(2)
  • Local Government Act 1997 s.173
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Statute 1996 (Statute No. 4) s.121
  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996 rule 19
  • Indian Limitation Act 1908 s.3
  • Indian Limitation Act 1908 s.5
  • Indian Limitation Act 1908 art.177
  • Civil Procedure Code 1966 (Tanganyika) Order 22 r.4
  • Fatal Accidents Act 1846 s.3

Cases cited (4)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Osman v United India Insurance Co Ltd [1968] EA 102
  • Pritam Kaur v S Russell & Sons Ltd [1973] 1 All ER 617
  • Hughes v ... (1862) 13 CBNS 324
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.