Wakilii

Omara Daniel and Others v Attorney General and Uganda National Roads Authority (Constitutional Petition 16 of 2021)

Constitutional Court · [2025] UGCC 3 · 2025 Petition Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(1), (3) and (4) challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and related acts and omissions concerning compulsory land acquisition.
Decision
Petition succeeded in part: section 10(5)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act declared unconstitutional; the remaining impugned provisions upheld as constitutional when construed under Article 274; no order as to costs.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 petitioners challenged sections 6(5), 10 and 15 of the Land Acquisition Act as inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of prompt compensation, fair hearing and protection from deprivation of property. The Court held that section 10(5)(c), insofar as it permits the appointed officer to take possession of land while a compensation dispute referred to court remains undetermined, contravenes Articles 26(2)(b) and 28(1) and is unconstitutional. Sections 6(5)(a)(b)(c), 10(5)(d) and 15, when construed in conformity with the Constitution under Article 274, were held not unconstitutional. Failure to enact a comprehensive acquisition law was held not itself a constitutional violation. The petition succeeded in part with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioners, advocates for the rule of law and land rights, challenged the constitutionality of sections 6(5), 10 and 15 of the Land Acquisition Act (Cap.235). They contended that the respondents repeatedly invoked these provisions to deposit assessed compensation sums into court and take possession of land affected by the Tilenga oil project and the Hoima-Buhimba road project before paying fair and adequate compensation, contrary to the constitutional requirement of prior compensation. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in UNRA v Irumba Asumani, which struck down section 7 of the Act for failing to require compensation before possession. The respondents argued that the impugned provisions only guided the court where ownership or quantum was disputed, the owner could not be traced, or an award was unreasonably rejected, and did not authorise possession without compensation. The petitioners also complained that the State had failed to enact a comprehensive law governing compulsory acquisition consistent with the 1995 Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raises any questions for constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether sections 6(5)(a), (b) and (c) of the Land Acquisition Act are inconsistent with Articles 26(1), 21(1), 22(1), 28(1) and Objective XIV of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.
  3. Whether sections 10(3), (4) and (5)(c), (d) of the Land Acquisition Act are inconsistent with Articles 26(1), 26(2)(b), 21(1), 22(1) and 28(1) of the Constitution.
  4. Whether sections 15(1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act are inconsistent with Articles 26(1), 21(1) and 22(1) of the Constitution.
  5. Whether the act and omission of the High Court at Masindi in Miscellaneous Cause No. 25 of 2020, ordering deposit of funds into court and allowing possession before payment of adequate compensation, is inconsistent with Articles 26(1) and (2)(b), 21(1) and 28(1) of the Constitution.
  6. Whether the respondents' applications to deposit money into court and take over condemned land under section 6(5) of the Land Acquisition Act are inconsistent with Articles 26(1) and (2)(b), 21(1), 22(1) and 28(1) of the Constitution.
  7. Whether the 1st respondent's neglect and refusal to enact a comprehensive law regulating compulsory acquisition of land in accordance with Article 26 is inconsistent with Articles 26(1) and (2)(b), 21(1) and 22(1) of the Constitution.
  8. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • Section 10(5)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, to the extent that it provides for the taking of possession before a dispute referred to court by the Attorney General is fully determined and compensation paid, contravenes Articles 26(2)(b)(i), 26(2)(b)(ii) and 28(1) of the Constitution and is unconstitutional.
  • Sections 6(5)(a), (b) and (c) of the Land Acquisition Act are not inconsistent with or in contravention of Articles 22(1), 26(2)(b) and 28(1) of the Constitution.
  • Section 10(5)(d) of the Land Acquisition Act is not inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 26(2)(b) of the Constitution.
  • Section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act is not inconsistent with or in contravention of Articles 21(1), 22(1) and 26(2)(b) of the Constitution.
  • Since the petition was brought in the public interest, there shall be no order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is invoked only where the resolution of a question is wholly dependent on the interpretation of a specific provision of the Constitution apparent on the face of the petition; under Article 137(3)(a) the court may interpret an Act of Parliament to determine whether it is inconsistent with the Constitution even where the constitutional provision concerned is itself clear.
Land & Property — Compulsory Acquisition — Prompt and Adequate Compensation Prior to Possession
Article 26(2)(b) requires that the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of property be made under a law providing for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession, and the framers made no exceptions to that constitutional command.
Constitutional Law — Existing Law — Article 274 — Pre-1995 Statutes
An existing law enacted before the 1995 Constitution, such as the Land Acquisition Act of 1965, must be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as are necessary to bring it into conformity with the Constitution.
Land & Property — Taking Possession Pending Determination of Referred Dispute — Section 10(5)(c)
A statutory provision permitting an appointed officer to enter and take possession of land while a dispute over compensation referred to court remains undetermined is unconstitutional, as it defeats the right to prior fair and adequate compensation and the right of access to court under Article 26(2)(b), and the right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1).
Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule
Where the words of a statutory provision are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning.
Constitutional Law — Failure to Enact Legislation — Whether a Constitutional Violation
The failure or refusal to enact a law is not a violation of the Constitution unless a provision of the Constitution specifically commands the enactment of such a law.

Legislation cited (18)

  • Land Acquisition Act (Cap.235) s.6(5)
  • Land Acquisition Act (Cap.235) s.7
  • Land Acquisition Act (Cap.235) s.10
  • Land Acquisition Act (Cap.235) s.13
  • Land Acquisition Act (Cap.235) s.15
  • Land Acquisition Act (Cap.235) s.16
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 21(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 22(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 26
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 43
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 79
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 139
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 274
  • Land Act s.72
  • Land Act s.75(1)(b)
  • Land Act s.77

Cases cited (11)

  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asumani and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
  • Attorney General v Happy Ignatious and 8 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 25 of 2020)
  • Irumba Asumani and Another v UNRA (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2012)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Mbabali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v David Tinyefunza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Dimanche Sharon and Others v Makerere University (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • Katikiro of Buganda v Attorney General of Uganda [1959] EA 382
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Akankwansa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Reference No. 5 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.