Twase v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 45 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2024] UGCC 11 · 2024 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Constitutional petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, met by a preliminary objection that the petition raised no question of constitutional interpretation

Decision

Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; petitioner's remedy lies under Article 50(1) before the ordinary courts

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 Court upheld the Attorney General's preliminary objection that the petition raised no question of constitutional interpretation. Article 4, requiring the State to translate, teach and publicise the Constitution, is clear and unambiguous; the petitioner sought enforcement of those obligations, not interpretation. Under Article 137(1) the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction is confined to interpretation, and redress under Article 137(4) is only incidental to that function. A claim to enforce a constitutional right that does not require interpretation must be pursued under Article 50(1) before the ordinary courts. The petition therefore did not invoke the Court's jurisdiction and was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner challenged the office of the Attorney General for failing to ensure the translation of the 1995 Constitution into Ugandan languages and its dissemination as required by Article 4(a), and for failing to provide for its teaching in educational institutions and its transmission through the media as required by Article 4(b). He sought, among other remedies, a directive that Government immediately comply with Article 4 and a permanent injunction restraining further amendment of the Constitution until those obligations were met. The Attorney General denied any omission, stating that the Law Reform Commission had published a simplified version and translated the Constitution into several local languages, that the National Curriculum Development Centre had incorporated its teaching, and that the Uganda Human Rights Commission had run media campaigns. The Attorney General also raised a preliminary objection that the petition disclosed no question of constitutional interpretation.

Issues

Whether the petition raises any issue requiring constitutional interpretation so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution.
Whether the State has fulfilled its obligation to promote public awareness of the Constitution under Article 4 of the Constitution.
What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

Petition dismissed.
No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Limited to interpretation under Article 137(1)

The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137(1) of the Constitution is confined to the interpretation of the Constitution; unless the determination of the question before it depends on the interpretation or construction of a constitutional provision, the Court has no jurisdiction.

Constitutional Law — Interpretation versus enforcement — Distinction between Article 137 and Article 50

A person who seeks to enforce a right or freedom guaranteed under the Constitution, by claiming redress for its infringement, but whose claim does not call for interpretation of the Constitution, must apply under Article 50(1) to the ordinary courts and not to the Constitutional Court.

Constitutional Law — Redress under Article 137(4) — Incidental to the interpretative mandate

Redress under Article 137(4) is purely incidental to the Constitutional Court's interpretative function under Article 137(3); the Court may grant such redress only where it flows directly from the interpretation of a constitutional provision.

Constitutional Law — Article 4 obligations — Clear provisions requiring no interpretation

The State's obligations under Article 4 to translate, disseminate, teach and publicise the Constitution are clear and unambiguous and require no interpretation; a claim that the State has not complied with them is one for enforcement and not for constitutional interpretation.

Legislation cited (5)

Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.4
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.1
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.3

Cases cited (4)

Mbabali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza
Stephen Asiimwe & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2016)

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.