Perez Kakumu v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2003)

Constitutional Court · [2006] UGCC 8 · 2006 Petition Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Preliminary objection raised at the hearing of a constitutional petition brought under article 137(3) of the Constitution

Decision

Petition struck out with costs to the respondents; petitioner's counsel held personally liable for those costs.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 petitioner challenged provisions of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, the National Forestry Authority, and government forestry policies as inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution, which he argued vested forest management in local governments. The Constitutional Court upheld the respondents' preliminary objection, holding that the Constitution (Amendment) Act No.5 of 2005 — placing policy and management of all forests and wildlife reserves under the Central Government — destroyed the basis of the petition. The court further held the petition grossly defective for non-compliance with rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005, and that government policies and plans are not justiciable under article 137(3). The petition was struck out, with costs payable personally by the petitioner's counsel.

Facts

The petitioner, a District Forest Officer, filed a constitutional petition on 15 December 2003 contending that numerous provisions of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, the creation and operations of the National Forestry Authority, the Uganda Forestry Policy 2001, the National Forest Plan 2002, and sections of the Local Governments Act were inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution. His central premise was that the sixth schedule to the 1995 Constitution made only "forest and game reserve policy" a function of the Central Government, leaving the actual management of forests and wildlife reserves to local governments, so the Central Government and the Authority were acting unconstitutionally in managing forests. While the petition was pending, the Constitution (Amendment) Act No.5 of 2005 amended the sixth schedule to make "forest and wildlife reserve policy and management" a function of the Central Government. At the hearing, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the amendment had overtaken the petition and that the pleadings were fatally defective.

Issues

Whether the 2nd respondent (the National Forestry Authority) is a proper respondent to the petition.
Whether the Uganda Forestry Policy 2001 is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Whether the National Forest Plan 2002 is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Whether sections of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 providing for the management of all forests are inconsistent with the Constitution.
Whether the operations of the National Forestry Authority are inconsistent with article 189 of the Constitution.
Whether sections 175(2), (3) and 176(2) of the Local Governments Act are inconsistent with the Constitution.
Whether the claim relating to the powers of the Permanent Secretary over forests and district forestry officers is res judicata.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Whether a constitutional amendment that removes the basis of a pending petition renders the petition incompetent.
Whether government policies and plans are justiciable under article 137(3) of the Constitution.

Orders

Preliminary objection of the respondents upheld.
Petition struck out as grossly defective and incompetent.
Costs of the petition awarded to the respondents.
Petitioner's counsel personally liable to pay the costs of the suit.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional Petitions — Effect of Subsequent Constitutional Amendment on a Pending Petition

Where a constitutional amendment enacted after a petition is filed removes the very inconsistency the petition alleges, the basis of the petition is destroyed and it becomes overtaken by events; the court will not entertain it as an exercise in academic gymnastics.

Civil Procedure — Constitutional Pleadings — Compliance with Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005

A constitutional petition must be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs each confined to a distinct inconsistency or contravention complained of; a petition that lumps dozens of statutory sections against numerous unrelated constitutional articles without specifying the extent of each inconsistency is grossly defective and incompetent.

Constitutional Law — Justiciability — Government Policies and Plans under Article 137(3)

Government policy documents and plans are neither an Act of Parliament or other law nor an act or omission of a person or authority within article 137(3) of the Constitution, and are therefore not justiciable in the Constitutional Court.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Personal Liability of Counsel for a Defective Petition

Where a petition is struck out for gross non-compliance with the pleading rules through the negligence of counsel who drew it, counsel may be ordered to pay personally the costs incurred by other parties.

Legislation cited (7)

Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
Constitution (Amendment) Act No.5 of 2005
National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 s.52
Local Governments Act Cap 243 s.175
Local Governments Act Cap 243 s.176
Local Governments Act 1 of 1997 s.31(1)(b)
Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 (S.I. No.91/05) r.3

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.