Wakilii

Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General and Two Others [2008] UGSC 10

Supreme Court · 2008 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the High Court's dismissal, on preliminary objection, of a constitutional enforcement application brought under Article 50.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's affirmation of the dismissal of the Article 50 application upheld, although ground two (mode of commencement) partially succeeded.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal's affirmation of the High Court's refusal of a constitutional enforcement application. While the Court held that proceedings under Article 50 may be commenced by plaint or by notice of motion depending on the facts (so ground two partially succeeded), it found that claims requiring constitutional interpretation belong in the Constitutional Court under Article 137, that general and exemplary damages cannot be established by notice of motion, and that Article 50 cannot be used to stay or dismiss a pending criminal prosecution. There is no freedom from prosecution; a malicious-prosecution suit arises only after the prosecution concludes. The DPP and the police officer were not proper parties.

Facts

The appellant was charged in the Chief Magistrate's Court with embezzlement and stealing by an agent. After the prosecution closed its case, the magistrate ruled he had a case to answer. Rather than defend, the appellant pursued parallel proceedings to halt the prosecution. One was a High Court revision application (dismissed and upheld on appeal). The other, giving rise to this appeal, was High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2002, brought by notice of motion under Article 50(1) against the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police officer who had re-arrested him. He sought thirteen declarations that his prosecution and the freezing of his assets infringed his constitutional rights, orders setting aside the magistrate's orders and dismissing the criminal case, and general and exemplary damages. The respondents raised preliminary objections; the High Court upheld them, holding it lacked jurisdiction, and dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The criminal proceedings were later discontinued.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred by determining the appeal on an issue (the High Court's jurisdiction) said not to have been raised as a ground of appeal or argued by the parties.
  2. Whether an action to enforce fundamental rights under Article 50 of the Constitution can be commenced only by plaint, or also by notice of motion.
  3. Whether a declaration of right and a claim for general and exemplary damages could be sought by notice of motion under Article 50.
  4. Whether an application under Article 50 could be used to stay or dismiss an ongoing criminal prosecution pending in another court.
  5. Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions and the investigating police officer were proper parties to the application.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • First respondent awarded costs in the Supreme Court and in the two courts below.
  • Second and third respondents awarded costs only in the Supreme Court and in the High Court.
  • Copies of the judgment to be forwarded to the Rules Committee to review and clarify the procedure under Article 50 (per Odoki, CJ).

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Rights — Article 50 — Mode of commencement
An action to enforce a fundamental right or freedom under Article 50 of the Constitution may be commenced either by plaint or by notice of motion, depending on the facts and nature of the complaint; Article 50 does not confine enforcement to a single procedure.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Article 50 versus Article 137 — Interpretation of the Constitution
Where a claim for redress for infringement of a right requires interpretation of the Constitution, it must be brought by petition to the Constitutional Court under Article 137; where the right is clearly protected and only enforcement is sought, it may proceed by plaint in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Claims for damages
A claim for general and exemplary damages cannot properly be prosecuted by notice of motion, because the evidence needed to establish such damages requires the framework of an ordinary suit commenced by plaint.
Constitutional Law — Article 50 — No freedom from prosecution — Abuse of process
A person enjoys no constitutional protection against or freedom from prosecution; an application under Article 50 cannot be used to stay or dismiss an ongoing criminal prosecution pending in another court, and a suit for wrongful or malicious prosecution can be brought only after the prosecution has concluded.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Suits against Government and public officers
Civil proceedings against the Government must be instituted against the Attorney General under Article 250(2); the Director of Public Prosecutions is not a body corporate capable of being sued, and a public officer acting within the scope of his official functions is protected from personal suit under the Judicature Act.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Procedure — Determination of grounds of appeal
An appellate court does not err by framing and resolving a single dispositive issue that in substance encompasses the grounds of appeal argued, even if it does not address each ground individually, where no party is thereby prejudiced or condemned unheard.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.50(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.50(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137
  • Constitution of Uganda art.129
  • Constitution of Uganda art.250(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.273
  • Constitution of Uganda art.20(2)
  • Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules (S.I. No. 26 of 1992) r.3(1)
  • Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996 (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules)
  • Legal Notice No. 3 of 1996
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 2 r.7
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 48 rr.1 and 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rr.1(5), 4 and 5
  • Judicature Act s.46
  • Judicature Act s.48
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.101(c)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.97(1)(c)

Cases cited (12)

  • Odd Jobs v Mubia (1970) EA 476
  • Insurance Co. Ltd v R. Hashem & Sons (1960) EA 592
  • Onyango Obbo and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 29 of 2002)
  • Olushola Oyegbemi Vs. Attorney General (1982) Vol. 2 FNIR 192
  • Casino Grande v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 191 of 2004)
  • TEAN v BAT (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2003)
  • Jovelin Barugahare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Uganda Women Lawyers v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2002)
  • Tumushabe v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2004)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Dr. J. W. Rwanyarare and 2 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 85 of 1993)
  • Okumu Vs. Attorney General
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.