Wakilii

Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another [1999] UGSC 23

Supreme Court · 1999 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Constitutional Court's order upholding preliminary objections and striking out a constitutional petition
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Constitutional Court's order striking out the petition set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the petition.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 11 (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 appellant petitioned the Constitutional Court alleging that his arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for a non-existent offence violated his constitutional rights, and sought a declaration and compensation. The Constitutional Court struck out the petition on preliminary objections. On appeal, the Supreme Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction under Article 137 is confined to interpretation of the Constitution; a claim merely to enforce rights, redressable under Article 50 by any competent court, does not invoke it. By section 4(5) of the Government Proceedings Act and Article 128(4), the Government is not liable for acts of judicial officers. The order striking out the petition was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing it.

Facts

On 5 September 1997 the appellant was arrested by an official of Kampala City Council and taken before a Magistrate Grade II, where he was charged with obstructing an officer on duty contrary to section 106 of the Penal Code. He pleaded guilty, was convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. On appeal, the Chief Magistrate quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence, holding that the facts disclosed no offence, and ordered his release; he was released on 24 October 1997. He then petitioned the Constitutional Court against Kampala City Council and the Attorney General, seeking declarations that the acts of arrest, charging, conviction, sentencing and detention contravened his constitutional rights, and compensation of shs 5,000,000 per day for the days he was detained. At the hearing the respondents raised preliminary objections that the petition was brought against the wrong parties, raised no question of constitutional interpretation, and was time barred. The Constitutional Court upheld the objections and struck out the petition with costs. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in striking out the petition on preliminary objections on points of law without identifying the procedural rule under which it acted.
  2. Whether the petition disclosed a cause of action against the respondents and was maintainable in law.
  3. Whether the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction over the petition, that is, whether the petition raised a question requiring interpretation of the Constitution under Article 137.
  4. Whether the Attorney General could be held liable for the acts of judicial officers given section 4(5) of the Government Proceedings Act and Article 128 of the Constitution.
  5. Whether the petition was time barred under Rule 4(1) of the Rules under Legal Notice No.4 of 1996.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The order of the Constitutional Court striking out the petition is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the petition.
  • The order for costs made by the Constitutional Court is set aside.
  • Each party to bear its own costs in the Supreme Court and in the court below.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is derived exclusively from Article 137 of the Constitution and is confined to the interpretation of the Constitution; Article 50 confers on it no additional or separate original jurisdiction merely to enforce fundamental rights and freedoms.
Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Rights — Article 50 and the Competent Court
A person seeking redress for the infringement or threatened infringement of a fundamental right whose claim does not call for interpretation of the Constitution must apply to a competent court under Article 50; the Constitutional Court is a competent court for that purpose only upon determination of a petition properly brought under Article 137(3).
Human Rights — Liability for Acts of Judicial Officers — Government Proceedings Act s.4(5)
No proceedings lie against the Government in respect of anything done by a person while discharging responsibilities of a judicial nature or in execution of judicial process; the Attorney General is therefore not answerable, vicariously or otherwise, for the acts or omissions of judicial officers acting in their official capacity.
Constitutional Law — Independence of the Judiciary — Article 128(4)
By Article 128(4) of the Constitution a person exercising judicial power is not liable for any act or omission in the exercise of that power, and no person or authority may be held liable for a judicial officer's acts done bona fide in the exercise of judicial functions.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Distinction Between Rejection for No Cause of Action and Disposal on a Preliminary Point of Law
A distinction must be drawn between rejecting a plaint for an inherent defect disclosing no cause of action (O.7 r.11) or striking out a pleading disclosing no reasonable cause of action (O.6 r.29), and disposing of a suit on a preliminary point of law (O.6 rr.27-28, O.13 r.2); a court should identify the provision under which it acts, particularly where the applicable principles differ, and a litigant must not be turned away before a hearing on the merits except in plain and obvious cases.
Civil Procedure — Computation of Time — Interpretation Decree s.34
In computing the limitation period for lodging a petition, the day on which the event occurred is excluded and, where the last day falls on a Sunday or public holiday, the period extends to the next following day that is not an excluded day.

Legislation cited (25)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.128(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.128(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.21(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.31(4)
  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap 69) s.4(5)
  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.48(1)
  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.51(2)
  • Penal Code Act s.106
  • Magistrates' Courts Act 1970 s.216(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.13 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
  • Interpretation Decree 1976 s.34
  • Rule 4(1) of the Rules under Legal Notice No.4 of 1996

Cases cited (16)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Everett v Ribbands and Another [1952] 2 QB 198
  • Nurdin Ali Dewji and Others v G.M.M. Meghji & Co. and Others (1953) 20 EACA 132
  • Wycliffe Kiggundu Kato v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993)
  • Express Electrical Engineers & Contractors v Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1980)
  • Attorney General v Oluoch [1972] EA 392
  • Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 WLR 688
  • Sarwan Singh v Notkin (1952) 19 EACA 117
  • Republic of Peru v Peruvian Guano Company (1877) 36 Ch D 489
  • Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v Wilkinson, Heywood and Clark Ltd [1899] 1 QB 86
  • Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435
  • Sekaddu v Ssebadduka [1968] EA 213
  • Serapio Rukundo v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 3 of 1997)
  • Western Steamship Co Ltd v Amaral Sutherland & Co Ltd [1914] 2 KB 55
  • Opolot v Attorney General [1969] EA 631
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.