Kwiringira Magezi and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 24 of 2018)

Constitutional Court · [2021] UGCC 19 · 2021 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Constitutional petition under Article 137 of the Constitution seeking annulment of a resolution of Parliament and declarations of unconstitutionality

Decision

Petition dismissed; the petitioners are not entitled to any of the declarations claimed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

The Constitutional Court dismissed a petition challenging Parliament's 3 September 2015 resolution creating 25 new districts, including Kikuube out of Hoima. The court held that the districts named under Article 178(3) and the First Schedule were only deemed eligible to form regional governments; because the Bunyoro districts never agreed under Article 178(1) and (2) to do so, no Bunyoro regional government ever existed and those districts were not entrenched. Parliament could therefore alter their boundaries and create new districts by resolution under Article 179, which does not prescribe a single procedure and does not require an amending Act of Parliament. The resolution did not amend Articles 5(2) or 178(3) by implication or infection, so Articles 259 and 261 were not breached.

Facts

On 3 September 2015 Parliament passed a resolution creating 25 new districts, including Kikuube District, carved out of Hoima District with effect from 1 July 2018. The petitioners contended that the districts of Bunyoro (Buliisa, Hoima, Kibaale and Masindi) were entrenched by Articles 5(2) and 178(3) and the First Schedule as forming Bunyoro Regional Government from 1 July 2006, and could not be altered without an amending Act of Parliament. The Attorney General responded that the districts had never agreed under Article 178 to form a regional government, that no Bunyoro regional government was operational, and that the creation of districts followed a Hoima District Council resolution, committee scrutiny and parliamentary debate over several sittings before the majority vote required by Article 179(2). Evidence included Hansard for July 2012 and August–September 2015, the affidavit of the Clerk to Parliament, and a Hoima District Council resolution of 30 September 2010 supporting the split.

Issues

Whether Articles 178(3) and (13) of the Constitution brought the districts identified in the First Schedule, including those under Bunyoro, into being as regional governments forming part of Uganda under Article 5(2).
Whether the alteration of the boundaries of Hoima District to create Kikuube District by a resolution of Parliament contravened Articles 179 and 8A of the Constitution.
Whether Parliament's resolution of 3 September 2015 creating new districts amounted to an amendment of Articles 5(2), 178(3), (4) and (13) and the First Schedule of the Constitution by implication or infection, contrary to Articles 259 and 261.

Orders

The petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs, the petition having been brought in the public interest.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Interpretation — Reading the Constitution as an integrated whole

A constitution must be read as an integrated whole, with no provision destroying another but each sustaining the other, and provisions relating to the same subject must be construed together to determine their purpose and effect.

Constitutional Law — Regional Governments — Districts deemed under Article 178(3) only eligible, not constituted

The districts named in Article 178(3) and the First Schedule are merely deemed eligible to form regional governments; a regional government comes into being only when the relevant districts actually agree under Article 178(1) and (2), and where they do not, the deemed region does not exist and those districts remain separate, ordinary districts.

Administrative Law — Local Government — Creation of districts by parliamentary resolution under Article 179

Article 179 does not prescribe a single procedure for creating districts; Parliament may alter boundaries and create new districts by a resolution supported by a majority of all members under Article 179(2), and creating a district necessarily entails altering the boundaries of the parent district.

Constitutional Law — National Objectives and Directive Principles — Justiciability of Article 8A

The National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, given effect by Article 8A, are justiciable, particularly where they relate to specific provisions of the Constitution, but compliance with the necessity-for-effective-administration criteria in Article 179(4) is a matter to be assessed on the evidence.

Constitutional Law — Amendment by implication or infection — Effect of a measure on entrenched provisions

A measure amends the Constitution by implication or infection only where its effect is to add to, vary or repeal a provision; a parliamentary resolution creating districts does not amend Articles 5(2) and 178(3) where those provisions are redundant for want of any regional government, so Articles 259 and 261 are not engaged.

Legislation cited (16)

Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.5(2)
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.8A
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.178
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.179
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.259
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.261
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.262
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.273
Local Governments Act s.7(2)
Evidence Act s.56(2)
Public Finance Management Act 2015 s.75(6)
Public Finance Management Act 2015 s.75(7)
Petroleum (Refining, Conversion, Transmission and Midstream Storage) Act 2013
Rules of Procedure of Parliament 2012 rule 2
Rules of Procedure of Parliament 2012 rule 147

Cases cited (5)

David Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996)
Paul K. Ssemwogerere & Others v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
Godfrey Nyakana v National Environment Management Authority (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2011)
Attorney General v Susan Kigula & 417 Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
The Queen v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1986) LRC 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.