Wakilii

Initiative for Social and Economic Rights (ISER) and 3 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2023] UGCC 9 · 2023 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(1), (3)(b) and (4) of the 1995 Constitution challenging Government omissions
Decision
Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; matter ought to be pursued in the High Court under Article 50

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 for want of jurisdiction. It held that under Article 137 of the 1995 Constitution, read conjunctively with the line of authority in Tinyefuza and Serugo, the Court may only entertain petitions that genuinely require interpretation of the Constitution, not those primarily seeking enforcement of rights. The petition's complaint — that Government's failure to ensure sufficient sign language interpreters at health facilities violated the rights of persons with hearing disabilities — was in substance a claim for enforcement of rights, which since the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 must be brought in the High Court or a Magistrate's Court under Article 50. The substantive issue was therefore not reached.

Facts

The petitioners, two disability-rights organisations and two individuals with hearing disabilities, complained that persons with hearing disabilities can only communicate through sign language or sign language interpreters and require such assistance to convey their medical issues to practitioners. They alleged that there are insufficient sign language interpreters at public and private health facilities across Uganda, impeding effective health care for persons with hearing disabilities. They contended that Government's failure both to provide enough interpreters at state health facilities and to compel private facilities to do so contravened numerous constitutional rights and Uganda's obligations under several international instruments, and that substantive equality required Government to go beyond enacting the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2006. The petition was supported by some twenty-five affidavits. The respondent denied the allegations and contended that the petition raised no question for constitutional interpretation and that the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court determined the jurisdiction question first and did not reach the substantive rights issue.

Issues

  1. Whether the Petition raises any questions for constitutional interpretation so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137.
  2. Whether the failure by Government to provide sign language interpreters at public health facilities, and to require private health facilities to do so, violates the constitutional rights of persons with hearing disabilities.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 read conjunctively with clause (3)
The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction under Article 137 only over petitions whose determination genuinely requires interpretation of a provision of the Constitution; clauses (1) and (3) must be read conjunctively, and it is not enough merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated.
Constitutional Law — Distinction between constitutional interpretation and enforcement of rights
A petition that in substance seeks the enforcement of fundamental rights, rather than the resolution of a genuine controversy about the meaning of a constitutional provision, falls outside the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction and must be pursued before a competent court under Article 50.
Human Rights — Enforcement — Competent court under Article 50 and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019
Following the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, the competent court for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 50 is the High Court or a Magistrate's Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.43
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.27
  • Persons with Disabilities Act 2006
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.3
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.4
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2001 s.67(3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Baku v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Serugo v Attorney General and Kampala City Council (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
  • Uganda Journalist Safety Committee v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1997)
  • Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and 3 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2011)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2011)
  • Satya Peter Chapa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 36 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.