Wakilii

Murisho Shafi and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2024] UGCC 31 · 2024 Petition Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(3) of the Constitution seeking declarations and redress
Decision
Petition allowed; Petitioners relieved of criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No. 096 of 2015 at the Anti-Corruption Division; each party to bear its own costs (Kibeedi JCC partially dissenting)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 majority held the petition raised questions for constitutional interpretation and that the Inspectorate of Government's continued investigation and prosecution of the petitioners, despite subsisting High Court injunctions barring it, contravened the independence of the judiciary under Article 128 and Section 19(1)(c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002. The Court also held that the Inspectorate has no corporate legal status to sue or be sued. The petition was allowed; the petitioners were relieved of the criminal prosecution and each party was to bear its own costs. Kibeedi JCC partially dissented, holding that the court orders bound only their parties and that the Inspectorate's criminal investigation fell within its Article 225 mandate.

Facts

The Inspectorate of Government (2nd respondent) was investigating the allegedly fraudulent issuance of a land title for Plot 24 Spire Road, Jinja. The High Court at Jinja issued interim injunctions restraining the Inspectorate from investigating or prosecuting in respect of the plot: one on 29 July 2016 in Miscellaneous Application No. 393 of 2016 (in favour of Nantambala Joyce) and another on 17 August 2016 in Miscellaneous Application No. 427 of 2016 (in favour of the 6th petitioner). Notwithstanding the orders, the Inspectorate drew up a charge sheet and instituted criminal proceedings against the petitioners at the Anti-Corruption Division on 16 August 2016, and continued investigations into 2017. The petitioners contended that the Inspectorate disregarded the subsisting court orders, contrary to the Constitution and Section 19 of the Inspectorate of Government Act, 2002. The respondents maintained the investigations were concluded before the orders, that the petitioners were not parties to the injunctions, and that the Inspectorate acted within its constitutional mandate.

Issues

  1. Whether the Petition raises any questions for constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether the 2nd Respondent's actions in investigating, bringing and instituting charges against the Petitioners in the alleged presence of injunctive orders issued by the High Court of Uganda at Jinja contravene or are inconsistent with Articles 128(1), (2), (3) and 225(1) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the declarations sought.

Orders

  • The actions of the Inspectorate of Government in investigating and consequently instituting criminal charges related to the ownership of Plot 24 Spire Road, Jinja against the Petitioners, well aware of injunction orders issued by Court stopping the investigations and prosecution, were unconstitutional and in contravention of Articles 128 and 225(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  • The actions of the Inspectorate of Government in investigating civil matters already in Court are in contravention of Article 128 of the Constitution and Section 19(1)(c) of the Inspectorate of Government Act, 2002.
  • The Petitioners be relieved of criminal prosecutions in Criminal Case No. 096 of 2015 instituted at the Anti-Corruption Division of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Buganda Road.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional Interpretation — Cause of action under Article 137(3)
A petition under Article 137(3) of the Constitution sufficiently discloses a cause of action where it describes the act or omission complained of, identifies the provision of the Constitution alleged to be inconsistent or contravened, and seeks a declaration to that effect; a liberal and broader interpretation is given to a constitutional petition than to a plaint.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Relationship between Article 50 and Article 137
The Constitutional Court may entertain a matter that seeks enforcement of a constitutional right where the petition also seeks the interpretation of a constitutional provision; its jurisdiction is exclusively derived from Article 137 and Article 50 confers no separate enforcement jurisdiction on it.
Administrative Law — Inspectorate of Government — Corporate legal status
The Inspectorate of Government has no corporate legal status and no capacity to sue or be sued; courts will not confer such status on a public body where Parliament has not provided for it in the enabling law.
Statutory Interpretation — Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 — Section 19(1) as an absolute bar
Section 19(1) of the Inspectorate of Government Act, 2002 operates as an absolute bar precluding the Inspectorate from questioning or reviewing the decisions of courts or judicial officers and from investigating civil matters before the courts, subject to no exceptions.
Constitutional Law — Independence of the Judiciary — Article 128 — Disregard of court orders
Where a constitutional body investigates and prosecutes persons in disregard of subsisting injunctions issued by a competent court barring it from doing so, it violates the independence of the judiciary protected by Article 128 of the Constitution and cannot be sanctioned by the court.
Administrative Law — Attorney General — Representation of Government and public bodies
The Attorney General, as principal legal advisor to and representative of Government under Articles 119 and 250 of the Constitution, is a proper party to constitutional petitions and judicial review proceedings involving a public body such as the Inspectorate of Government.

Legislation cited (24)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.128
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.225(1)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.227
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.119(4)(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.250
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.226
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.42
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(c)
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.19(1)
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.8
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.10
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.7
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.24
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap.23 s.126
  • Magistrates Courts Act Cap.16 s.197
  • Penal Code Act Cap.120 s.286
  • Registration of Titles Act s.182
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules S.I. 91 of 2005
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-1 r.44(2)

Cases cited (25)

  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Raphael Baku Obudra v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Dr. James Rwanyarare v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1997)
  • Alenyo George Williams v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2000)
  • Saga Peter Chapa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 36 of 2012)
  • Behangana Domaro and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2010)
  • Mbabali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
  • Charles Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Speedway Auctioneers v Edward Musisi (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Standard Chartered Bank v Jennifer Rwabwimana and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 886 of 2015)
  • Wildlife Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok and Another [2005] 2 EA 344 (HCK)
  • Gordon Sentiba v Inspectorate of Government (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2008)
  • Gordon Sentiba and Others v Inspector General of Government (Civil Application No. 2 of 2010)
  • Inspectorate of Government v Kikondwa Butema Farms Ltd and Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2007)
  • Charles Twagira v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2005)
  • Gurinda Paul v Attorney General, DPP and URA (Constitutional Application No. 15 of 2015)
  • Jim Muhwezi v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 18 of 2007)
  • Kulata Basangwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2018)
  • American Procurement Co. Ltd v Attorney General and Inspectorate of Government (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2009)
  • Kizza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2017)
  • Mohamed Allibhai v Bukenya Mukasa and the Departed Asians Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Uganda v Ssonko (Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of 2019) [2019] UGHCACD 42
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd [1990] 2 AC 85
  • Nurdin Ali Dewji & Others vs G.M. Alibhai & Others [1953/54] EACA
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.