Wakilii

Muslim Centre for Justice and Law and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 48 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2023] UGCC 13 · 2023 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition challenging the constitutionality of statutory provisions and a regulation
Decision
Petition dismissed; 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 Constitutional Court dismissed the petition. It held the petition raised genuine constitutional interpretation questions, but found none of the impugned provisions unconstitutional. Exempting government vehicles from compulsory third-party insurance (section 2(2)) is not discriminatory because the government remains directly liable to victims. Section 42, which suspends the never-commenced Nominal Defendant Council provisions, confers no enforceable right and does not breach access to justice; the dependent section 34 issue was therefore moot. Regulation 4's cap on insurer liability does not extinguish the tortfeasor's unqualified liability and so violates no right to property, life, dignity or remedy.

Facts

Petitioner No.1 is a non-governmental organisation providing legal aid to marginalised communities. Petitioner No.2, a minor suing through a next friend, was run over by an unidentified vehicle in September 2010, suffering severe injuries to her lower limbs, both of which were subsequently amputated, with surgical costs exceeding shs.20,000,000. The statutory scheme for compensating victims of unidentified or uninsured vehicles, through the Nominal Defendant Council, was never brought into force and remains suspended, leaving her without a statutory remedy. The petitioners challenged provisions of the Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act and its Regulations as unconstitutional: the exemption of government vehicles from compulsory insurance, the suspension of the Nominal Defendant Council provisions, the cap on insurer liability, and the limited compensation payable. They sought declarations of unconstitutionality and an award of damages for Petitioner No.2.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises matters for constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether section 2(2) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, exempting government vehicles from compulsory third-party insurance, is inconsistent with articles 21(1) and 43(1) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether section 42 of the Act, suspending the provisions establishing the Nominal Defendant Council, is inconsistent with article 45 of the Constitution.
  4. If issue 3 is answered affirmatively, whether section 34 of the Act is inconsistent with article 26 of the Constitution.
  5. Whether regulation 4 of the Regulations, capping insurer liability, is inconsistent with articles 20(2), 22(1), 24 and 45 of the Constitution.
  6. Whether any remedies are available to the petitioners.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Equality and Non-Discrimination — Exemption of Government Vehicles from Compulsory Third-Party Insurance
A statutory provision exempting government-owned vehicles from compulsory third-party insurance does not discriminate against victims of government vehicles contrary to article 21, where the government remains directly liable for third-party risks and victims can recover from it, so that the two categories of victims enjoy equal protection of the law.
Constitutional Law — Access to Justice (article 45) — Suspended and Uncommenced Statutory Provisions
Statutory provisions that Parliament has suspended and which have never come into force confer no enforceable right, and a law deferring their commencement cannot be impugned as contravening the right of access to justice.
Constitutional Law — Cap on Insurer Liability — Right to Property, Life, Dignity and Remedy
A regulatory cap on the amount payable by an insurer under a third-party risks policy does not extinguish the tortfeasor's unqualified liability to the victim, who may proceed directly against the owner or driver, and therefore does not contravene articles 20(2), 22(1), 24 or 45 of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (article 137) — Question of Interpretation
For the Constitutional Court to have jurisdiction under article 137, the petition must show on its face that interpretation of a constitutional provision is required in relation to an impugned law, act or omission; a bare allegation that a constitutional provision has been violated is insufficient.
Statutory Interpretation — Principles of Constitutional Interpretation — Purpose, Effect and Harmony
In determining the constitutionality of legislation a court must consider both its purpose and effect, read the Constitution as an integral whole, and give provisions enshrining fundamental rights a dynamic, progressive, liberal and purposive interpretation.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.2(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.20(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.21
  • Constitution of Uganda art.22(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.24
  • Constitution of Uganda art.26(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.43
  • Constitution of Uganda art.45
  • Constitution of Uganda art.79(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137
  • Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Cap 214 s.2(2)
  • Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Cap 214 s.34
  • Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Cap 214 s.39
  • Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Cap 214 s.42
  • Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Regulations S.I 214-1 reg.4

Cases cited (14)

  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Kabandize and 10 Others (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014)
  • Osotraco Ltd v Attorney General (2003) 2 EA 654
  • Anita Kushwaha v Pushap Sudan, Transfer Petition (C) No. 1343 of 2008
  • Phillip Karugaba v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 148 of 2014)
  • David Tusingwire v Attorney General [2017] UGSC 11
  • Rtd Dr. Col. Kiiza Besigye v Y. K. Museveni (Presidential Election Petition No. 2 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v. Silvatori Abuki Constitutional Appeal No. 1988 (SC)
  • P. K. Ssemogerere and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General of Tanzania v Rev Christopher Mtikila (2010) EA 13
  • Okello Okello John Livingstone and 6 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2005)
  • South Dakota v. South Carolina 192, USA 268, 1940
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & 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.