Wakilii

Turyomugendo & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 4 Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2009)

Constitutional Court · [2019] UGCC 2 · 2019 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, determined on a preliminary objection to jurisdiction
Decision
Petition dismissed with costs for want of jurisdiction; complainants directed to the appropriate civil/judicial review forum

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 Constitutional Court upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed the petition. Its jurisdiction under Article 137 is confined to interpreting the Constitution; it cannot entertain matters concerning mere violation of rights, which belong before a competent court under Article 50, nor administrative law disputes. The petition was a long narrative of facts that failed to identify any law, act or omission requiring constitutional interpretation, and offended the form and content requirements of Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 and Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. In substance it was an administrative law action disguised as a constitutional petition, which the Court had no jurisdiction to hear.

Facts

The petitioners were senior employees of Kyambogo University who alleged that their employer and its officers sought to terminate and demote them, reduce their salaries, and prosecute them after they challenged these actions. They obtained interim injunctions from the High Court, but alleged that the Minister of State for Higher Education and the Solicitor General publicly attacked the Registrar who issued the orders, that the Chief Registrar professed obedience to the Solicitor General, and that a Judge vacated an interim order relying on those letters without first hearing them and declined to refer a question to the Constitutional Court. Rather than pursuing the High Court judicial review and civil proceedings they had already instituted to conclusion, the petitioners brought this constitutional petition alleging numerous contraventions of the Constitution arising from these administrative and judicial actions.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raised any question requiring interpretation of the Constitution under Article 137 such that the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to entertain it.
  2. Whether the petition complied with the form and content requirements of Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 and Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Petition dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 Limited to Interpretation
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is limited to the interpretation of the Constitution; it has no jurisdiction to entertain matters relating merely to the violation of constitutional rights for which redress alone is sought.
Constitutional Law — Redress for Rights Violations — Article 50 as Proper Avenue
A claim seeking only redress for the violation of constitutional rights, without raising a genuine question of constitutional interpretation, ought to be brought before a competent court under Article 50 rather than by way of a petition under Article 137.
Administrative Law — Disguised Constitutional Petition — Action Properly Brought by Suit or Judicial Review
Where a petition is in substance an administrative law action disguised as a constitutional petition, the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it; such disputes are better resolved by ordinary suit under the Civil Procedure Act or by judicial review.
Civil Procedure — Form of Constitutional Petition — Compliance with Rule 3 and Rule 66(2)
A constitutional petition must, under Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 and Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, concisely and without argument or narrative identify the specific law, act or omission requiring constitutional interpretation; a petition that is a mere narrative of facts offends those rules in both form and substance and is liable to be dismissed.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.3
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.23
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.66(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules r.6

Cases cited (9)

  • Charles Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
  • Mbabaali Jude v Hon. Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Herman Semujju v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1998)
  • Paul Ssemwogerere and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2002)
  • Alenyo George William v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2005)
  • Uganda Network On Toxic Free Malaria Control Limited v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2009)
  • Asiimwe Gilbert v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd and 2 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2010)
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.