Wakilii

Dr. James Rwanyarare and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2002)

Constitutional Court · [2003] UGCC 6 · 2003 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by notice of motion seeking to stay the operation of statutory provisions pending the disposal of a related constitutional petition
Decision
Application allowed; operation of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act stayed pending disposal of Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002

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 applicants sought to stay the operation of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act 2002 pending determination of their constitutional petition. The court held that, although section 65(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and section 35 of the Judicature Statute did not authorise the order, it retained inherent jurisdiction under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act and rule 1(3) of its own rules to make orders meeting the ends of justice. It doubted whether the bar on injunctions against Government under section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act remained good law under the 1995 Constitution, where judicial power derives from the people. The application was allowed and operation of the impugned provisions stayed.

Facts

The applicants, members of existing political parties, had filed Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002 challenging the constitutionality of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act 2002, which compelled existing parties to register as bodies corporate within six months of commencement or cease to legally exist. The registration deadline was 16 January 2003. Because of the Constitutional Court's busy schedule, it was unlikely the petition would be heard and disposed of before the deadline, which the applicants argued would render their challenge nugatory and threaten the rights of Ugandans to associate and assemble under their existing parties. They therefore applied for an order suspending the operation of the impugned provisions pending final disposal of the petition.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to suspend or stay the operation of a statutory provision pending the final disposal of a constitutional petition.
  2. Whether an order staying the operation of the impugned provisions would amount to an injunction against the Government, prohibited by section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act.
  3. Whether the bar on injunctions against the Government remains good law under the 1995 Constitution.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Operation of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act stayed pending the final disposal of Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002.
  • Costs to abide the result of the petition.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Court — Interlocutory Relief — Inherent Jurisdiction
Although section 65(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and section 35 of the Judicature Statute do not confer authority on the Constitutional Court to grant an order staying a statutory provision, the court retains inherent jurisdiction under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act and rule 1(3) of its own rules to make such orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of its process.
Constitutional Court — Jurisdiction — Redress under Articles 137(4) and 50
The Constitutional Court may grant an order of redress under Article 137(4) where it considers it necessary upon interpretation of the Constitution, and it is competent to grant redress for the infringement or threatened infringement of a guaranteed right only upon determination of a petition brought under Article 137(3).
Government Proceedings — Immunity from Injunction — Effect of the 1995 Constitution
The bar on injunctions against the Government under section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, rooted in the historic immunity of the Crown, is doubtful as good law under the 1995 Constitution, under which judicial power derives from the people and is exercised in their name; such existing law must be construed with the modifications necessary under Article 273(1) to conform with the Constitution, the Government enjoying no preferential treatment over the ordinary citizen.
Constitutional Court — Duty to Adjudicate — Access to Justice
A court is not to turn away a litigant without deciding the complaint brought before it; where its own busy schedule prevents timely disposal of a petition, it must grant redress as the circumstances dictate to meet the ends of justice.

Legislation cited (23)

  • Political Parties and Organizations Act No. 18 of 2002 s.6(3)
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act No. 18 of 2002 s.6(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.1(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.79
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.270
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.273(1)
  • Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 s.35
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 65) s.2
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 65) s.65(e)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 65) s.101
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 Rules 1 and 2
  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 69) s.15
  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 69) s.15(2)
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) rule 1(3)
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) rule 4
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) rule 10
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996) rule 13

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General v David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1989)
  • Olive Casey Jaundoo Vs. Attorney General of Guyana [1971] AC 972
  • Levesque Vs. Attorney General of Canada et al (1985) 25 DLR 184
  • N. Nagendra Rao and Co Vs. State of A.P. AIR (1994) SC 2663
  • Byrne Vs. Ireland and The Attorney General [1972] IR 241
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.