Wakilii

Center for Health, Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 8 of 2019)

Constitutional Court · [2024] UGCC 14 · 2024 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284
Decision
Petition dismissed as moot following the repeal of the Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 petition challenged numerous provisions of the Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 as unconstitutional. The Court held that although the petition raised live questions for constitutional interpretation when filed in 2019, the Public Health (Amendment) Act 2023, which came into force on 24 March 2023, expressly repealed the Venereal Diseases Act under section 97. As the impugned Act no longer existed, there was no live controversy and the matters had become moot. Persuaded by the United States authorities County of Los Angeles v Davis and Lewis v Continental Bank Corporation, the Court declined to determine the substantive grounds and dismissed the petition as moot, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, a health and human rights organisation, filed a constitutional petition in 2019 challenging multiple provisions of the Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 as inconsistent with the Constitution. It contended that the Act provided for forced testing, examination, treatment, disclosure of contacts, detention of infected persons, restriction of the right of appeal, and criminal penalties based on health status, in violation of rights to health, dignity, privacy, liberty, equality and fair hearing. It also contended that the Uganda Law Reform Commission had failed in its mandate to review and reform the Act. The respondent argued the petition raised no question for constitutional interpretation and that the provisions could be construed in conformity with the Constitution under Article 274. While the petition was pending, the Public Health (Amendment) Act 2023 came into force on 24 March 2023 and expressly repealed the Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises questions for constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether sections 2, 3(1), 3(2), 6(b) and (d) of the Venereal Diseases Act, providing for forced testing, examination and treatment, are inconsistent with the Constitution.
  3. Whether sections 4(1) and (2) of the Venereal Diseases Act, providing for forced disclosure of a contact, are inconsistent with the Constitution.
  4. Whether sections 3(3) and 6(c) of the Venereal Diseases Act, providing for detention of an infected person, are inconsistent with the Constitution.
  5. Whether section 3(4) of the Venereal Diseases Act, restricting the right of appeal, is inconsistent with the Constitution.
  6. Whether the failure of the Uganda Law Reform Commission to study, review and recommend reform of the Act contravenes Article 248 of the Constitution.
  7. Whether section 8 of the Venereal Diseases Act, providing criminal penalties against persons infected with a venereal disease, is inconsistent with the Constitution.
  8. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declarations and reliefs prayed for.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed as moot.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Litigation — Mootness — Repeal of Impugned Statute During Pendency
Where the statute whose provisions are challenged in a constitutional petition is repealed before the petition is heard and determined, the matters in controversy become moot, there being no live controversy and no legally cognizable interest in the outcome, and the petition will be dismissed without determination of the substantive constitutional grounds.
Mootness — Test for a Moot Case
A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a cognizable interest in the outcome; jurisdiction properly acquired may abate where there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur and interim events have completely and irrevocably eradicated its effects.

Legislation cited (29)

  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.2
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.3(1)
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.3(2)
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.3(3)
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.3(4)
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.4(1)
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.4(2)
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.5
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.6(c)
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.8
  • Venereal Diseases Act Cap 284 s.10
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 8A
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 21
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 23
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 24
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 27
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 42
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 43(2)(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 44
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 45
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 248
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 274
  • Uganda Law Reform Commission Act Cap 26 s.10
  • Public Health (Amendment) Act 2023 s.97
  • Public Health Act
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 9
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3

Cases cited (8)

  • Ismail Serugo v KCCA & AG (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • JRB et al v Ministry of Defence Case No. 14000, Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela (1998)
  • Hon. Sam Kuteesa & 2 Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Uganda Law Society & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petitions No. 2 & 8 of 2002)
  • Christopher Martin Madrama v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2016)
  • County of Los Angeles v Davis, 440 US 626 (1979)
  • Lewis v Continental Bank Corporation, 494 US 472
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.