Wakilii

Okello-Okello and Others v Attorney General and Electoral Commission (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2005 Ruling-1)

Constitutional Court · [2005] UGCC 10 · 2005 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Informal application made in the course of constitutional petition proceedings seeking suspension of the referendum pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court
Decision
Application to suspend the referendum dismissed; Registrar directed to compile the record of proceedings for the intended appeal

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 Court held that the functus officio rule did not apply: the informal application was properly before it under Rules 42(3) and 1(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, which preserve the Court's inherent power to attain the ends of justice. On the merits, however, the Court declined to suspend or postpone the referendum. The petitioners' concern that the record of proceedings would not be ready in time was speculative, there was no cogent evidence that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory, and the choice of method for changing the political system lay within Parliament's discretion. Suspending the nationwide referendum would not serve the ends of justice. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

Immediately after the dismissal of Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2005, counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that the petitioners intended to appeal to the Supreme Court. He requested that the Registrar urgently compile the record of proceedings, which the Court directed. Given the short time before the referendum scheduled for 28 July 2005 and the Court's workload, counsel doubted the record would be ready in time. He therefore applied informally for the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Rule 1(3) to suspend or postpone the referendum so the intended appeal could be disposed of, arguing the appeal would otherwise be rendered nugatory and that millions of Ugandans had an interest. The respondents opposed the application as incompetent, contending the Court was functus officio and that suspending the referendum would not serve the ends of justice.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners' informal application after delivering judgment in the petition.
  2. Whether the Court should exercise its inherent powers under Rule 1(3) to suspend or postpone the referendum to enable the petitioners to pursue their intended appeal to the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • The Registrar is directed to urgently prepare and compile a written record of proceedings to enable the petitioners to file their appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • The application to suspend the referendum process is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Informal Applications under Court Rules
The functus officio rule does not bar an informal application properly made in the course of proceedings; such an application is competently before the court under Rules 42(3) and 1(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of the Court — Ends of Justice
The court's inherent power to make orders necessary to attain the ends of justice will not be exercised to suspend a nationwide referendum where the applicants' fears are speculative and unsupported by cogent evidence that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory.
Constitutional Law — Separation of Powers — Parliament's Discretion in Changing the Political System
The choice of method for changing the prevailing political system falls within the discretion conferred on Parliament by the Constitution, and the court will not dictate to Parliament how to exercise that discretion.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Rules of the Constitutional Court r.42(3)
  • Rules of the Constitutional Court r.1(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996
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.