Wakilii

Center for Public Interest Law Limited v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 2019)

Constitutional Court · [2023] UGCC 6 · 2023 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 challenging the constitutionality of legislation, a statutory instrument and acts of the respondent's agents
Decision
Petition dismissed in its entirety 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 Court dismissed a petition challenging Section 25(1) of the Uganda Wildlife Act 2019 and the statutory instrument creating the East Madi Wildlife Reserve. It held that Section 25(1) is not unconstitutional because its requirement that the Minister consult the relevant local government council before declaring a wildlife conservation area satisfies the constitutional principle of public participation, since elected local leaders act as agents of the people. The challenges to the statutory instrument and the claim of unlawful compulsory acquisition failed on a false factual foundation: a Ministry of Lands survey placed the reserve wholly within Adjumani District, so the Apaa community of Amuru District held no interest of which it was deprived. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

In September 2011 the Minister for Tourism issued a statutory instrument under the Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap. 200 declaring the East Madi Wildlife Reserve, following consultation with the Adjumani District Local Government and approval by Parliament. In 2019 the Act was repealed and replaced by the Uganda Wildlife Act 2019, whose Section 25(1) similarly empowers the Minister to declare a wildlife conservation area after consulting the relevant local government council and obtaining Parliament's approval. The petitioner contended that the reserve sits on customary land of the Apaa community in Amuru District, who were displaced into camps during the Lord's Resistance Army war and never consulted, and that the wrong district was consulted. The respondent relied on a Ministry of Lands survey concluding that the reserve is wholly located within Adjumani District, bordering Amuru. The petitioner sought declarations of unconstitutionality, recognition of the Apaa community's ancestral land rights, and degazettement of the reserve.

Issues

  1. Whether Section 25(1) of the Uganda Wildlife Act, No. 17 of 2019 is inconsistent with Objective II(i) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy and Articles 2(1) & (2), 8A and 176(2)(b) of the 1995 Constitution.
  2. Whether the making of the Uganda Wildlife (Declaration of Wildlife Conservation Area) (East Madi Wildlife Reserve) Instrument, S.I No. 49 of 2011 made under the Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap. 200 contravenes Objective II(i) of the NODPSP and Articles 2(1) & (2), 8A, 176(2)(b) and 237(1) & (3)(a) of the 1995 Constitution.
  3. Whether the making of the said Instrument, by which a wildlife conservation area was declared in East Madi, amounts to irregular compulsory acquisition of historical and ancestral rights in the customary lands of the Apaa community in contravention of Articles 2(1) & (2), 26(1) & (2) and 237(2)(a) of the 1995 Constitution.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Public Participation — Consultation with Local Government as Agents of the People
A statutory provision requiring the Minister to consult the relevant local government council before declaring a wildlife conservation area ensures the participation of affected people, because elected local leaders act as agents of the citizens and transmit their views, and therefore does not contravene the democratic-participation principle in Objective II(i) of the NODPSP or Article 8A of the Constitution.
Statutory Interpretation — Constitutionality — Both Purpose and Effect Relevant
In determining the constitutionality of legislation, both the purpose and the effect of the provision are relevant, and either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate the legislation.
Land & Property — Compulsory Acquisition — Requirement of a Proven Proprietary Interest
A claim that the creation of a wildlife reserve amounts to unlawful compulsory acquisition of customary land must rest on proof that the claimants hold an interest in the land affected; where evidence establishes that the land lies outside the claimants' district and is not owned by them, the claim fails on its factual foundation and no constitutional question arises.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Article 137 — Questions of Fact
A dispute that turns purely on a question of fact, such as the physical location of land within one district or another, does not disclose a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 137(1) and falls outside the Constitutional Court's interpretive jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Uganda Wildlife Act, 2019 s.25(1)
  • Uganda Wildlife Act, 2019 s.27(2)
  • Uganda Wildlife Act, 2019 s.32(2)
  • Uganda Wildlife Act, 2019 s.32(4)
  • Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap. 200 s.17
  • Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap. 200 s.18
  • Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap. 200 s.25(3)
  • Land Acquisition Act, Cap. 226 s.7(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda, 1995 art.137
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, 2005 r.3

Cases cited (6)

  • R vs. Big M Drug Mart Ltd & 3 Others [1985] 1 R.C.S
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Mabirizi and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeals Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2018)
  • Legal Advice Centre and 2 Others vs. County Government of Mombasa and 4 Others [2018] eKLR
  • Poverty Alleviation Network & Othrs vs. President of South Africa and 19 Others [2010] ZACC 5
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
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.