Wakilii

Haruna v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition 18 of 2020)

Constitutional Court · [2024] UGCC 17 · 2024 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 challenging the constitutionality of regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012.
Decision
Petition dismissed as res judicata; no new question for constitutional interpretation.

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 petitioner challenged regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, which requires a mortgagor to deposit 30% (or 50% for redemption) of the forced sale value or outstanding loan before a court adjourns or stops a sale, as inconsistent with the rights to a fair hearing, equality and property and as ultra vires the Mortgage Act. The Constitutional Court held that the identical constitutional questions had already been interpreted and adjudicated by the same court in Ferdsult Engineering Services v Attorney General & ABSA Bank Ltd. A constitutional interpretation binds beyond the original parties, so the questions were res judicata and could not be heard again. The petition raised no new question for interpretation and was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner was a customer of the second respondent bank and obtained credit facilities for constructing commercial buildings on his land, securing one facility by depositing his land titles. He alleged the bank breached the contract, failed to disburse agreed sums and unlawfully debited his accounts, leading to litigation that was consolidated in the High Court. After obtaining a temporary injunction to avert sale of the secured property, the bank invoked regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, which conditions the adjournment or stoppage of a sale on payment of a 30% (or 50% for redemption) security deposit of the forced sale value or outstanding loan amount. The petitioner brought this constitutional petition contending that regulation 13 erodes the presumption of innocence, curtails access to justice, denies a fair hearing, offends equality and property rights, and is ultra vires the Mortgage Act. The respondents argued the petition was commercial in substance, an abuse of process, and that the same constitutional questions had already been decided in an earlier petition.

Issues

  1. Whether regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 28(1), 21(1) and (2), 43 and 44(c) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether regulation 13(1), (4) and (5) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 26 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether regulation 13(1), (4) and (5) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 79, 126, 128 and 150 of the Constitution.
  4. Whether the constitutional questions raised were res judicata having previously been determined by the Constitutional Court.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional Interpretation — Res Judicata in Constitutional Petitions
Once the Constitutional Court has interpreted a constitutional provision and adjudicated a constitutional question, that question becomes res judicata and the court cannot hear and determine the same substantive constitutional question again.
Constitutional Law — Effect of Constitutional Interpretation — Binding Pronouncement Beyond the Parties
An interpretation by the Constitutional Court of a legal provision against the Constitution is not limited to the parties in the case in which the interpretation is made; it constitutes a binding pronouncement of the law, subject only to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Stare Decisis — Court Bound by Its Own Previous Decisions
By the doctrine of stare decisis the Constitutional Court is bound to adhere to its previous decisions on the constitutionality of a provision, and a petition raising the identical question already determined presents no new question for interpretation.

Legislation cited (16)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(1)(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.21
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.26
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.43
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.79
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.128
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.150
  • Mortgage Regulations No. 2 of 2012 reg.13
  • Mortgage Act No. 8 of 2009 s.20
  • Mortgage Act No. 8 of 2009 s.33
  • Mortgage Act No. 8 of 2009 s.41
  • Contracts Act 2010
  • Constitutional Court (Petition and Reference) Rules 2006 r.3

Cases cited (9)

  • Ferdsult Engineering Services & Mugisha Ferdinand v Attorney General & ABSA Bank Ltd Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 20
  • Nakato Margaret v Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor (HCCA No. 0687 of 2021)
  • The Queen v Big Drugmark Ltd (Others intervening) 1996 LRC (Const.) 982
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Fuelex (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2009)
  • Law & Advocacy for Women in Uganda v Attorney General (Constitutional Petitions No. 13 of 2006 & 06 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Law Society (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba & Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
  • Uganda v Godfrey Oneg Obel (Constitutional Petition No. 24 of 2011)
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.