Wakilii

Atubua v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 2 of 2020)

Constitutional Court · [2023] UGCC 103 · 2023 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(3) challenging the constitutionality of a statutory provision
Decision
Petition dismissed for failing to disclose a question for constitutional interpretation; each party to bear own costs

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

The petitioner, a foreign-qualified accountant, challenged section 5(3)(b) of the Accountants Act 2013 as discriminatory against accountants with foreign qualifications, contrary to Article 21. The Court held that the petition was couched in generalities and devoid of essential facts showing how the provisions had been applied discriminatorily, so it disclosed no genuine question for constitutional interpretation under Article 137. Mere allegation of a rights violation does not confer jurisdiction; where redress for rights enforcement is sought, the appropriate course is a regular suit in the trial court, with a reference to the Constitutional Court only if a constitutional question later arises. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner is an accountant who obtained his qualifications abroad (in Singapore) and holds a foreign accountancy qualification. He disputed the requirement of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda that he first pass qualifying examinations set by the Institute's examinations board and complete prescribed practical training before becoming a member. He challenged the constitutionality of section 5(3)(b) of the Accountants Act 2013, contending that it denies membership or direct membership to accountants who studied in foreign countries or hold foreign qualifications, and that this amounts to discrimination contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner did not attach documents evidencing his qualification or any correspondence with the Institute showing he had been refused enrolment, and the petition did not establish where he was enrolled.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises any issues for constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether section 5(3) of the Accountants Act 2013 is inconsistent with Article 21(1) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs as the petitioner is self-represented.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Requirement of a question for constitutional interpretation under Article 137
The Constitutional Court has no original jurisdiction merely to enforce rights and freedoms in isolation; a petition must require the Court to determine the meaning of a provision of the Constitution before it can be entertained under Article 137.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional petitions — Disclosure of a cause of action and a controversy involving interpretation
A constitutional petition discloses a cause of action only where it describes the act or omission complained of, identifies the constitutional provision allegedly contravened, prays for a declaration to that effect, and raises a genuine controversy involving the interpretation of the Constitution; the onus to show such a controversy lies on the petitioner.
Constitutional Law — Pleadings — Petition couched in generalities and devoid of essential facts
A petition that is couched in generalities and devoid of the essential facts showing how an impugned provision has been applied discriminatorily fails to raise a determinable controversy for constitutional interpretation, and the proper course is to file a regular suit in the trial court with a reference to the Constitutional Court only if a constitutional question later arises.
Statutory Interpretation — Test for constitutionality of a statute — Purpose and effect
To determine the constitutionality of a statute or section, the court considers the purpose and effect of the impugned provision; if either its purpose or the effect of its implementation infringes a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the provision shall be declared unconstitutional.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.21(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Accountants Act 2013 s.5(2)
  • Accountants Act 2013 s.5(3)(b)
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005

Cases cited (8)

  • 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)
  • Paul Semogerere v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula and Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
  • Salvatori Abuki v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1997)
  • Mbabali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
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.