Wakilii

Kamesa v Museveni Kaguta and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 10 of 2019)

Constitutional Court · [2023] UGCC 3 · 2023 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 challenging the constitutionality of the 1st respondent asserting presidential immunity as a defence to a civil suit
Decision
Petition dismissed; 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 sued the President for copyright infringement; the President pleaded immunity under Article 98(4), and the petitioner challenged that defence as unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court held that the petition raised no question for constitutional interpretation: the scope of presidential immunity under Article 98(4) had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court (a sitting President is immune from all legal proceedings save a presidential election challenge), so no further interpretation was needed. The petitioner's complaints about infringement of his rights to property and a fair hearing were matters of enforcement under Article 50 within the High Court's jurisdiction, not constitutional interpretation. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

On 6 March 2019 the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 160 of 2019 in the High Court (Commercial Division) against the 1st respondent, the President of Uganda, alleging infringement of his copyright in a song titled "Another rap" by the 1st respondent singing it and claiming it as his own. The petitioner sought declarations of authorship and ownership, compensation and royalties, and a permanent injunction. In his written statement of defence the 1st respondent asserted that, as President, he was immune from legal proceedings under Article 98(4) of the Constitution and sought dismissal of the suit. The respondents stated that the suit was subsequently dismissed. The petitioner then brought this constitutional petition contending that asserting presidential immunity to a suit founded on the President's private acts was unconstitutional and violated his rights to property and a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Petition raises any question for constitutional interpretation under Article 137 of the 1995 Constitution.
  2. If the Petition raises a question for constitutional interpretation, whether this Court is barred from entertaining it.
  3. Whether the 1st respondent's act of asserting the defence of presidential immunity to legal proceedings was inconsistent with Articles 2, 20, 26, 28, 44 and 98(4) and (5) of the 1995 Constitution.
  4. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the declarations and orders sought.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed for raising no question for constitutional interpretation.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 — When a petition raises a question for interpretation
The Constitutional Court's jurisdiction under Article 137 arises only where a petition shows on its face that the interpretation of a constitutional provision is required; a mere allegation that a constitutional provision has been violated is insufficient to invoke that jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Presidential Immunity — Article 98(4) — Scope of immunity of a sitting President
A sitting President is immune from all legal proceedings in any court while holding office, save for proceedings in a petition challenging the results of a presidential election; this position under Article 98(4) is settled law binding on the Constitutional Court.
Constitutional Law — Interpretation versus Enforcement — Article 50 — Rights complaints belong in the High Court
Allegations of infringement of rights, such as the rights to property and a fair hearing, are matters for enforcement under Article 50 within the jurisdiction of the High Court, and do not by themselves found jurisdiction in the Constitutional Court, which adjudicates interpretation rather than enforcement of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional Interpretation — Settled questions — No re-interpretation of conclusively determined provisions
Where a constitutional question has already been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, no further controversy as to interpretation subsists, and the Constitutional Court need not re-interpret the same provision in a subsequent petition raising the same question.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.98(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.20
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.26
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.40
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.99
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.104

Cases cited (13)

  • Tusingwire v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
  • Rtd Dr. Col. Kiiza Besigye v Y. K. Museveni (Presidential Election Petition No. 2 of 2005)
  • Ssemwogerere and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General of Tanzania v. Rev Christopher Mtikila (2010) EA 13
  • 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 Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Brigadier Henry Tumukunde v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2005)
  • Ssekikubo and 4 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
  • Ivan Samuel Ssebbaduka v Chairman Electoral Commission and 3 Others (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020)
  • Mbabaali v Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Nixon v Fitzgerald, 457 US 731 (1982)
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.