Wakilii

Attorney General v Awor [2014] UGSC 100

Supreme Court · 2014 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Constitutional Court allowing a constitutional petition
Decision
Appeal allowed; decision of the Constitutional Court set aside in so far as it nullified the nomination

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 allowed the Attorney General's appeal. It held that the only sanction prescribed by Article 83(1)(g)(h) of the Constitution for a Member of Parliament who abandons the party on whose ticket he was elected (or, as an independent, joins a party) is automatic loss of the parliamentary seat. The provision does not nullify such a member's nomination for election to the next Parliament; failure to resign or vacate the seat is not among the grounds of invalid nomination in section 13 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. The Constitutional Court therefore erred in reading nullification of nomination into the article, and its reasoning was contradictory in deeming the seat already vacated. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Facts

William Oketcho was elected to the 8th Parliament as Independent Member for West Budama North, having resigned from the NRM after losing its primaries. Before the end of that Parliament's term, he sought and won nomination as the NRM flag bearer for the same constituency for the 9th Parliament while still sitting as an independent MP. The respondent petitioned the Constitutional Court under Article 137(3), contending that Oketcho's conduct in seeking the NRM nomination while sitting as an independent, and continuing to sit and draw emoluments after joining the NRM, contravened the Constitution. The Constitutional Court allowed the petition, holding that under Article 83(1)(g)(h) Oketcho was deemed to have vacated his seat and that his nomination for the 9th Parliament was null and void. The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court against the holding that the nomination was nullified.

Issues

  1. Whether Article 83(1)(g)(h) of the Constitution nullifies the nomination of a Member of Parliament for election to the next Parliament where that member failed to vacate or resign his or her seat after changing party allegiance.
  2. Whether the Constitutional Court contradicted itself in declaring the nomination invalid for failure to vacate the seat while also holding that the member was deemed to have vacated his seat before that nomination.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Interpretation — Generous and Purposive Rule — Reading in words
A constitutional provision must be given a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation that gives effect to its spirit and the intention of its framers; words may be read into a provision only where a literal interpretation would produce absurdity or an unfair situation.
Crossing the Floor — Article 83(1)(g)(h) — Sanction for change of party allegiance
The sole sanction prescribed by Article 83(1)(g)(h) of the Constitution for a Member of Parliament who changes party allegiance is automatic loss of the parliamentary seat; the provision does not nullify the member's nomination for election to the next Parliament, nor does it bar the member from contesting to regain the seat.
Nomination — Grounds of Invalidity — Parliamentary Elections Act s.13
Failure to resign or vacate a parliamentary seat under Article 83(1)(g)(h) is not one of the factors set out in section 13 of the Parliamentary Elections Act that invalidate a nomination for a parliamentary seat.
Vacancy of Parliamentary Seat — Determination — Article 86(1)(a)
Where a Member of Parliament resists or disputes the vacation of his or her seat, the question whether the seat has fallen vacant is to be determined by a competent court under Article 86(1)(a) of the Constitution and section 86(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.83(1)(g)(h)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.86(1)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.43
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.29(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.72(4)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.86(3)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.13

Cases cited (6)

  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Selle & Anor v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd (1968) EA 128
  • Attorney General of the Gambia v Jobe (1984) AC 689
  • Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996)
  • South Dakota v North Carolina 192 US 268
  • Northman v Barnet London Borough Council (1979) 1 HLR 220
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.