Karugaba v Attorney General - CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004 [2006] UGSC 9

Supreme Court · 2006 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Appeal from the Constitutional Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition under Article 137.

Decision

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the right to petition the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is a chose in action vested in every person individually, but is not property within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution. The right is not exclusive, has no compensable value, and is not inheritable; it therefore expires with the deceased petitioner and confers no residual right on others, including former counsel. Because the right is not property, Rule 15 (under which a petition abates on the death of a sole petitioner) is not inconsistent with Article 26(2). The Court declined to consider the remaining grounds and made no order as to costs.

Facts

The appellant, a practising advocate, had been counsel for Joyce Nakachwa, the sole petitioner in Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2001. She died while the Constitutional Court was hearing that petition, and the court ruled that the petition abated on the death of a sole petitioner under Rule 15(1). The appellant then filed his own petition seeking a declaration that Rule 15 was inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution, contending that the right to petition is a chose in action and thus inheritable property that survived the deceased and could be continued by her successors or her counsel. The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed his petition as devoid of merit, and he appealed in person to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the right to petition the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution constitutes property within the meaning of Article 26.
Whether the right to petition, being a chose in action, is inheritable by the successors in title of a deceased petitioner.
Whether Rule 15 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for Declarations under Article 137) Directions 1996 is inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
No order as to costs in the Supreme Court or in the Constitutional Court.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Property — Meaning of 'property' under Article 26

The 'property' protected under Article 26 of the Constitution is that which is capable of being owned exclusively, can be the subject of bargain and sale, and is capable of being given a compensable value.

Constitutional Law — Right to petition under Article 137 — Whether property

The right to petition the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is a chose in action vested in every person in their individual capacity; it is not exclusive property within the meaning of Article 26 and is not inheritable.

Succession & Estates — Survival of rights — Abatement of petition on death of sole petitioner

A right that does not amount to property within Article 26 expires with the person who held it; the right to petition therefore does not survive a deceased sole petitioner, and the petition abates on death.

Constitutional Law — Consistency of subsidiary rules — Rule 15 of the Constitutional Court Directions

Rule 15, under which a constitutional petition abates on the death of a sole petitioner, is not inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 26(2) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (7)

Constitution of Uganda art.137
Constitution of Uganda art.26
Constitution of Uganda art.50
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.79
Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petitions for Declarations under Article 137) Directions 1996 r.15
Legal Notice No.4 of 1966 r.15(1)
Supreme Court Rules 1996

Cases cited (5)

Joyce Nakachwa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2001)
Alenyo v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2002)
Sarah Longwe v Intercontinental Hotels (1999) 4 LRC 221
Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
Shah v Attorney General (No. 2) [1970] EA 523

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.