Wakilii

Ssekikubo & 10 Ors v National Resistance Movement (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2019)

Constitutional Court · [2020] UGCC 8 · 2020 Petition Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, determined on a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
Decision
Petition struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to the Respondent.

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

By majority, the Constitutional Court held it lacked jurisdiction because the petition raised no question requiring interpretation of the Constitution. Under Article 137(1) the Court's jurisdiction is confined to controversies about the meaning of constitutional provisions; a mere allegation that a provision has been contravened is insufficient. The petitioners did not challenge the NRM party constitution as inconsistent with the national Constitution, but complained that party organs breached it by recommending a sole presidential candidate and excluding them from a caucus retreat. Those complaints concern enforcement of rights and the party constitution, properly pursued by judicial review or under Article 50 in the High Court. The preliminary objection was upheld and the petition struck out with costs.

Facts

The eleven petitioners are members of Parliament and members of the National Resistance Movement (NRM). On 19 February 2019 the NRM Central Executive Committee, chaired by President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, resolved to recommend that he continue leading the party and the State as the NRM's sole presidential candidate for the 2021 elections and beyond. At a Kyankwanzi retreat in March 2019 the NRM Parliamentary Caucus adopted that resolution. The petitioners alleged they were blocked by the Government Chief Whip from attending the caucus retreat without a hearing. They petitioned the Constitutional Court contending the resolutions and their exclusion contravened numerous constitutional articles, principally Article 71(1)(c) requiring the internal organisation of political parties to conform to democratic principles. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the matters required no constitutional interpretation and that the petitioners had not challenged the NRM constitution itself.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises grounds requiring interpretation of the Constitution so as to confer jurisdiction on the Constitutional Court.
  2. Whether the resolution of the NRM Central Executive Committee recommending H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni as the party's sole presidential candidate for 2021 and beyond is inconsistent with the Constitution.
  3. Whether the blocking of the petitioners by the Chief Whip from attending the NRM Parliamentary Caucus retreat is inconsistent with the Constitution.
  4. Whether the NRM Parliamentary Caucus decision adopting the Central Executive Committee resolution is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Orders

  • By majority, the Court declared it has no jurisdiction since the petition raises no issue for constitutional interpretation.
  • By majority, the petition is struck out.
  • By majority, the petitioners shall pay the costs of the petition to the Respondent.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137(1) — Limited to Questions of Interpretation
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137(1) of the Constitution is confined to determining questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution, and is not invoked merely because a petition alleges that a constitutional provision has been contravened.
Constitutional Law — Interpretation versus Enforcement — Article 50 — Proper Forum
Where a complaint concerns the enforcement of rights and raises no controversy as to the meaning of a constitutional provision, redress must be sought in a competent court under Article 50 or by judicial review in the High Court, not by petition to the Constitutional Court.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action Distinguished from Jurisdiction — Article 137(3)
Disclosure of a cause of action by alleging under Article 137(3) that an act, omission or law is inconsistent with the Constitution does not by itself confer jurisdiction on the Constitutional Court; the petition must additionally raise a controversy as to interpretation of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Political Parties — Article 71(1)(c) — Internal Party Acts
Where petitioners do not challenge their party constitution as inconsistent with the national Constitution but complain that party organs acted in breach of that party constitution, the dispute is one of enforcement of the party constitution and raises no question requiring interpretation of the Constitution.
Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of 'Question as to Interpretation' — Article 137(1)
A 'question as to the interpretation of the Constitution' under Article 137(1) means a genuine controversy or arguable doubt about the meaning, scope or ambit of a provision of the Constitution requiring resolution by the Constitutional Court.
Judicial Review — Jurisdiction of the High Court — Acts of Political Parties Ultra Vires their Constitutions
The High Court, exercising unlimited original jurisdiction, may interpret and enforce the Constitution and entertain judicial review of acts of a political party alleged to be ultra vires its registered constitution, provided no controversy as to the meaning of a constitutional provision arises.

Legislation cited (21)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(7)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda art.71(1)(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.71(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.72
  • Constitution of Uganda art.73
  • Constitution of Uganda art.99(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.42
  • Constitution of Uganda art.274(1)
  • Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005 s.7(5)(b)
  • Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005 s.3
  • Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005 s.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
  • Government Proceedings Act s.15
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982 s.11(4)(b)

Cases cited (17)

  • Male Mabirizi & Ors v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Petitions No. 49 of 2017 and Nos. 3, 5, 10 and 13 of 2018)
  • Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development & 3 Ors v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Mbabali v Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012) [2014] UGCC 15
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Maj. Gen. David Tinyefuza (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1987)
  • S v Marwane 1982 (3) SA 717 (AD)
  • Charles Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
  • Joyce Nakacwa v Attorney General & Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2001)
  • Asiimwe Gilbert v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd & Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2010)
  • Asiimwe Gilbert v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2010)
  • Nurdin Ali Dewji & Ors v G.M.M Meghji & Co & Ors (1953) 20 EACA 132
  • Attorney General v Osotraco Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
  • Osotraco Ltd v Attorney General [2003] 2 EA 654
  • Pyarali Abdu Ismail v Adrian Sibo (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Kabourou [1995] 2 LRC 757
  • Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1979] 3 All ER 21
  • R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1986] LRC (Const) 332
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.