Wakilii

Naloda v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2014)

Constitutional Court · [2021] UGCC 23 · 2021 Petition Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition brought under Article 137 of the Constitution
Decision
Petition struck out for lack of jurisdiction with no order as to costs.

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 petitioner sought to hold members of Parliament who absented themselves during voting on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill personally accountable for the costs ordered against the Attorney General in Oloka Onyango, alleging treason, abuse of office and causing financial loss. The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 137 is confined to questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution; merely alleging that constitutional provisions were violated is not enough. The petition raised no question for constitutional interpretation, so the court lacked jurisdiction. The court further observed that the impugned MPs ought to have been joined as parties and that the Attorney General could not answer for acts that are not acts of Government. The petition was struck out with no order as to costs.

Facts

In Oloka Onyango & 9 others v Attorney General the Constitutional Court had nullified the Anti-Homosexuality Act because Parliament lacked a quorum when it was passed, and ordered the Attorney General to pay 50% of the petitioners' costs. The petitioner, an electronics engineer, objected that this cost burden would fall on the public while the members of Parliament who absented themselves from the sitting of 20 December 2013 escaped responsibility. He petitioned the Constitutional Court contending that the absence of those members contravened numerous constitutional articles, the oaths of allegiance and of members of Parliament, and the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, and amounted to treason, abuse of office and causing financial loss. He sought declarations and orders requiring the absent members of Parliament to pay the costs personally and restraining payment of public funds for that purpose. The Attorney General contended that the petition disclosed no question for constitutional interpretation and no cause of action against the respondent, as it targeted the conduct of individual members of Parliament who were not parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises a question for constitutional interpretation such that the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to entertain it.
  2. Whether the absence of members of Parliament from the sitting of 20 December 2013 during voting on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was unlawful and inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Petition struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 — Requirement of a question for interpretation
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is limited to questions requiring the interpretation of the Constitution; a petition must show on its face that interpretation of a constitutional provision is required, and it is not enough merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated.
Constitutional Law — Article 137(3)(b) — Impugned act or omission must raise a question of constitutional interpretation
An act or omission by any person or authority under Article 137(3)(b) founds jurisdiction only when read together with Article 137(1); there must be a genuine controversy involving the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution, and a bare allegation of contravention coupled with a prayer for a declaration is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction distinguished from cause of action
Jurisdiction and cause of action are distinct questions governed by different rules; a court may have jurisdiction over a matter where no cause of action is disclosed, and a cause of action may be disclosed where the court has no jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Necessary parties and suing the Attorney General
Where a petitioner seeks to hold individual members of Parliament personally accountable, those members ought to be joined as parties; the Attorney General, sued on behalf of Government under section 10 of the Government Proceedings Act, cannot answer for acts that are not acts of Government.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.1(2) & (3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.79
  • Constitution of Uganda art.91(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.94(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.164(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.85
  • Constitution of Uganda art.3(2)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.11(1)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.20(1)
  • Government Proceedings Act s.10
  • Parliamentary Rules of Procedure r.101(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Oloka Onyango and Others v Attorney General [2014] UGCC 14
  • National Council for Higher Education v Kawooya [2015] UGSC 9
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another [1999] UGSC 23
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.