Wakilii

Tuhumwire and 5 Others v The Registered Trustees of Entebbe Club and 8 Others (Constitutional Petition 16 of 2015)

Constitutional Court · [2024] UGCC 8 · 2024 Petition Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 challenging acts and omissions of a private members' club and its trustees; determined on preliminary objections to jurisdiction.
Decision
Petition dismissed for raising no question as to the interpretation of the Constitution; no order as to costs.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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's jurisdiction under Article 137 is limited to interpretation of the Constitution; it has no original jurisdiction merely to enforce rights, which must be pursued in a competent court under Article 50. The petitioners' complaints about the trustees' conduct, the club's amended constitution and alleged disobedience of a court order concerned enforcement of rights and administrative grievances, not constitutional interpretation. Where a related suit was already pending in the High Court on the same facts, bringing the petition amounted to forum shopping; the proper route would have been a reference under Article 137(5). The court added that a genuine interpretation question about a private club's constitution could be entertained, but none arose. Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioners were members of Entebbe Club, a private members' golf club incorporated under the Trustees Incorporation Act, whose executive authority was vested in registered trustees. In 2008 the club amended its constitution, arrogating to its General Meeting and Management Committee powers reserved for the trustees. The petitioners alleged that the respondents conveyed, demised and disposed of club land without their involvement, by-passed a registered trustee, expelled the 6th petitioner, and amended the constitution irregularly, contrary to the Trustees Incorporation Act and the Constitution. They had earlier filed High Court Civil Suit No. 43 of 2015 on the same facts and obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondents, who allegedly continued the prohibited actions in breach of the order. They then brought this constitutional petition seeking declarations, reinstatement of the 6th petitioner, mandamus, an injunction, general damages and costs. The respondents raised preliminary objections that the matters required no constitutional interpretation and duplicated the pending suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution so as to vest the Constitutional Court with jurisdiction under Article 137.
  2. Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to inquire into the constitution and internal affairs of a private members' club.
  3. Whether the petition is an abuse of court process for duplicating a civil suit already pending in the High Court.

Orders

  • The petition against the 7th respondent is dismissed under Order 9 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to serve.
  • The preliminary objection to jurisdiction is upheld.
  • The petition is dismissed for raising no question as to the interpretation of the Constitution and disclosing no cause of action against the 8th and 9th respondents.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 — Interpretation distinguished from enforcement of rights
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is confined to the interpretation of the Constitution; it has no original jurisdiction merely to enforce rights and freedoms in isolation, and a petition that does not raise a question requiring interpretation must be dismissed and pursued instead before a competent court under Article 50.
Constitutional Law — Interpretation — Instruments of private associations — Whether the constitution of a private members' club may be examined for inconsistency with the Constitution
The Constitutional Court's interpretive jurisdiction extends to anything done under the authority of any law, drawing no distinction between instruments enacted by Parliament and rules made by private associations; a genuine question whether a private club's constitution contravenes the Constitution may therefore be entertained, but only where such an interpretive question actually arises.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of court process — Forum shopping — Parallel proceedings on the same facts
Where a suit founded on the same facts is already pending before the High Court and affords the remedies sought, bringing a constitutional petition on those facts amounts to forum shopping and an abuse of process; the proper route is a reference to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5) framed by the trial court.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for non-service — Order 9 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Where a petitioner makes no effort to serve a respondent, who consequently files no answer and does not appear, the petition against that respondent is taken to have been abandoned and is dismissed under Order 9 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Trustees Incorporation Act Cap.165 s.1
  • Trustees Incorporation Act Cap.165 s.2
  • Trustees Incorporation Act Cap.165 s.3
  • Trustees Incorporation Act Cap.165 s.14
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28
  • Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules r.23
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Land Act s.56

Cases cited (6)

  • Engineer Edward Turyomurugyendo K. & 2 Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2009)
  • Jude Mbabaali v Hon Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Dr. Maurice Alex Muhwezi v Busitema University & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 50 of 2011)
  • Aboneka Michael v Watoto Church (Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 2018)
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.