Wakilii

Leads Insurance Limited v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2021] UGCC 8 · 2021 Petition Allowed in Part ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(3) challenging the constitutionality of the DPP's continued seizure of the petitioner's land titles
Decision
Petition allowed in part by majority; the certificates of title held by the DPP cancelled and the Commissioner for Land Registration ordered to issue special certificates of title to the petitioner; each party to bear its own 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 court considered whether the DPP's continued retention of the petitioner's land titles, in defiance of existing High Court orders, raised a question of constitutional interpretation. It held that the allegations of breach of the rights to property and a fair hearing disclosed no cause of action for interpretation. However, the majority severed the issue of effective administration of justice, holding that respect for court orders is part of the spirit of the Constitution under Article 137(1), and that the DPP was in flagrant contempt of the High Court orders. The majority allowed the petition in part, cancelling the certificates of title held by the DPP and ordering issuance of special certificates to the petitioner, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, an insurance company, was the registered proprietor of several certificates of title valued at about UGX 3.58 billion that formed part of the assets on which its solvency was based. On 13 November 2014, police searched the petitioner's office and confiscated the certificates at the instance of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, on a suspicion that a director charged with corruption had used proceeds of crime to acquire the land. The titles were never returned. Because the insurance regulator de-recognised the land as assets, the petitioner could no longer meet the minimum capital requirement of UGX 4 billion and its 2015 insurance licence was not renewed. The petitioner obtained a High Court order (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2015) directing the DPP to release the titles, which he did not appeal but failed to obey. In Civil Suit No. 056 of 2015 the High Court found the Attorney General and its agents, including the DPP, in contempt of court. Over four years later the certificates of title had still not been returned, prompting this petition.

Issues

  1. Whether this court or any other court of law can interfere with the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions vested under Article 120 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether in the circumstances the orders were lawfully issued against the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  3. Whether the petition discloses a cause of action raising a question for constitutional interpretation.
  4. What remedies are available to the petitioner.

Orders

  • The certificates of title in respect of the petitioner's property held by the respondent (Kyadondo Block 232 Plot 1685; Kyadondo Block 217 Plot 843; Kyadondo Block 253 Plot 110; LRV 2572 Folio 20 Plot 1971 Kyadondo Block 244; and LRV 1986 Folio 6 Plot 810 at Bukoto) are cancelled.
  • The Commissioner for Land Registration is ordered to issue special certificates of title to the petitioner in respect of the certificates of title set out above.
  • The Commissioner for Land Registration is to issue a report to the court certifying compliance with the order to issue special certificates within 14 days of the date of the judgment.
  • Each party to bear its own costs; the respondents are denied costs by reason of their contempt.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional Interpretation — Cause of Action under Article 137
A constitutional petition discloses a cause of action only where it raises a genuine controversy requiring interpretation of the Constitution; a bare allegation of breach of, or inconsistency with, a constitutional provision, without an interpretive question, is insufficient, though a liberal and broader construction is applied than to an ordinary plaint.
Constitutional Law — Spirit of the Constitution — Administration of Justice
Ensuring the effective administration of justice and respect for the orders of competent courts is part of the spirit of the Constitution and may found a cause of action attracting the intervention of the Constitutional Court under Article 137(1).
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Obligation to Obey Court Orders
A court order is a court order and must be obeyed as made, even if irregular or perverse, unless and until it is set aside or varied by a competent court; flagrant disobedience, especially by a state authority, undermines the rule of law and constitutes contempt of court.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Liability of a Non-Party
A person who is not a party to the proceedings in which an order was made may nonetheless be held liable for contempt where there is evidence that he was aware of the court order but chose not to obey it.
Administrative Law — Director of Public Prosecutions — Independence and Subjection to Law
Although the Director of Public Prosecutions exercises independent constitutional functions under Article 120 free of direction or control, those powers are derived from the people and the DPP, like every other person, is equally bound by and must comply with the orders of the courts.
Company Law — Separate Legal Personality — Imputation of Director's Conduct
A company is a person in law distinct from its shareholders and directors; where the company has never been charged with any criminal act, the alleged crimes of its directors cannot be imputed to it so as to justify restraining or detaining the company's assets.

Legislation cited (21)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 120(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 120(6)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 128(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 128(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 128(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 26
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 20(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 20(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.34
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.53
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.54
  • Anti-Money Laundering Act s.71
  • Anti-Money Laundering Act s.72
  • Anti-Money Laundering Act s.73
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 36

Cases cited (13)

  • Baku Raphael Obudra and Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Wycliffe Kiggundu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993)
  • Davis Wesley Tusingwire v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2013)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • Dr. Tiberious Muhebwa v Uganda (Constitutional Reference No. 9 of 2012)
  • Law Institute of Victoria Ltd v Sylvester Finbarr Nagle [2005] VSC 47
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
  • Poje v Attorney General for British Columbia [1953] 1 SCR 516
  • Ambard v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322
  • Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] QB 729
  • Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 622
  • Nigerian Army v Mowarin (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 235) 345
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.