Wakilii

Busingye & Another v The Parliamentary Commission & Another (Constitutional Petition 4 of 2020)

Constitutional Court · [2024] UGCC 23 · 2024 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 challenging a parliamentary appropriation, met by preliminary objections including want of jurisdiction
Decision
Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; petitioners at liberty to file in a competent court under Article 50

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 Constitutional Court upheld the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. It held that under Article 137 its jurisdiction is confined to interpretation of the Constitution; a petition must show on its face that interpretation of a constitutional provision is required, and it is not enough merely to allege violation. The impugned provisions (Articles 93, 156 and 233) were clear with no controversy as to their meaning; the petition raised only alleged procedural irregularity and sought to rectify contraventions, which is a matter of enforcement best brought under Article 50 before the High Court. Having found no jurisdiction, the Court declined to determine the res judicata and abuse-of-process objections.

Facts

On 7 April 2020 Parliament passed a resolution appropriating Shs. 10 billion to the Parliamentary Commission from supplementary budget estimates intended for the COVID-19 pandemic, for distribution to individual Members of Parliament, with each MP receiving Shs. 20 million. The resolution was introduced and passed on Parliament's own motion on the floor, without the Executive's prior initiation and requisition of the funds and without prior deliberation by the Budget Committee. The petitioners contended that this exceeded Parliament's constitutional mandate and contravened Articles 93, 156 and 233 of the Constitution, the National Leadership Code and Parliament's Rules of Procedure, and sought declarations of illegality and orders for recovery and accountability of the funds. The 1st respondent opposed the petition and raised preliminary objections of want of jurisdiction, abuse of court process and res judicata. The 2nd respondent largely conceded that the resolution contravened the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the preliminary objections, including want of jurisdiction, were tenable.
  2. Whether the parliamentary resolution of 7 April 2020 appropriating Shs. 10 billion to the Parliamentary Commission was inconsistent with the Constitution.
  3. Whether the 1st respondent's disbursement of the funds to individual Members of Parliament was inconsistent with the Constitution.
  4. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

  • The petition is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs in this cause.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Interpretation versus enforcement under Article 137
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is limited to the interpretation of the Constitution; unless the question before it depends for its determination on the interpretation or construction of a constitutional provision, the Court has no jurisdiction, and it cannot exercise an original jurisdiction merely to enforce constitutional rights in isolation from interpretation.
Constitutional Law — Petitions under Article 137 — Requirement of a genuine controversy as to meaning
A petition invokes the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction only where it shows, on its face, that interpretation of a constitutional provision is required, disclosing a genuine controversy about the meaning of the provision; it is not enough merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated, and where the impugned provisions are clear an alleged contravention is a matter of inference and enforcement for a competent court under Article 50.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction distinguished from cause of action
Jurisdiction and cause of action are distinct concepts: jurisdiction is the authority of the court to adjudicate, imposed and limited by the Constitution or statute, whereas a cause of action is the bundle of facts which, with the applicable law, gives a party a right to relief; a determination of jurisdiction is not the same as a determination of cause of action.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary point of law disposing of the whole suit — Order 6 Rule 29 CPR
Where, in the court's opinion, the decision of a point of law substantially disposes of the whole suit, the court may under Order 6 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules dismiss the suit; a finding of want of jurisdiction is decisive and renders it unnecessary to determine the remaining preliminary objections.

Legislation cited (18)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.93
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.156
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.233
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.79
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.8A
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.155
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.152
  • Public Finance Management Act 2015 s.25
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 29
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 29 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Act s.7
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Leadership Code Act Cap 168
  • Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act Cap 259 s.5
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules SI 91 of 2005 Rule 23
  • Rules of Procedure of Parliament 2006 Rules 133, 147(3), 171, 174, 176

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2011)
  • Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control Limited v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2009)
  • Alenyo George William v The Chief Registrar of Courts of Judicature & 2 Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 32 of 2014)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1980)
  • General Industries (U) Limited v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2007)
  • Parliamentary Commission v Mwesigye Wilson (Constitutional Appeal No. 8 of 2016)
  • Ntare Adens Rutaro v Joel Ssenyonyi and 3 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2019)
  • Uganda Journalists Safety Committee & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1997)
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.