Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2015] UGSC 131 · 2015 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Constitutional appeal to the Supreme Court from the Constitutional Court's decision on a petition brought under Article 137 of the Constitution.

Decision

Appeal dismissed; Constitutional Court's declaration nullifying Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 26(2) upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 9 (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 UNRA's appeal and upheld the Constitutional Court's nullification of Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the extent it allows government to take possession of land before paying compensation, contrary to Article 26(2). Article 274 does not oust the Constitutional Court's original jurisdiction under Article 137 to interpret the Constitution, even where existing pre-1995 law is in issue. Article 26's requirement of prior compensation is clear and is not rendered derogable by reading it together with Article 43; the asserted disaster and emergency scenarios were academic and not before the court. No evaluation of evidence was needed where the deprivation flowed from operation of the impugned law.

Facts

The Government of Uganda commissioned an upgrade of the Hoima–Kaiso–Tonya road in Hoima District to facilitate oil exploration, implemented by the appellant, Uganda National Roads Authority. The works required acquiring additional land. The Government proceeded under Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 226), and under Statutory Instrument No. 5 of 2013, to compulsorily acquire land from affected persons, taking possession before paying compensation. The respondents petitioned the Constitutional Court contending that Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was inconsistent with Article 26 of the Constitution, which requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of property. The respondents did not dispute the value or quantum of any award, only the taking of possession before payment. The Constitutional Court nullified Section 7(1) to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 26(2), and UNRA appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the Constitutional Court erred in proceeding to determine the constitutionality of Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act after observing that, as an existing pre-1995 law, it could have been construed into conformity with the Constitution by other courts under Article 274.
Whether the Constitutional Court failed to consider whether the petition raised a question for constitutional interpretation against the appellant.
Whether the Constitutional Court erred in holding the appellant's acts unconstitutional without evaluating the evidence.
Whether Article 26 of the Constitution is a derogable right and whether Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is a necessary limitation of the right to property when read with Article 43.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Judgment of the Constitutional Court and the orders made therein upheld.
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 and existing law under Article 274

Article 274 of the Constitution, which permits existing pre-1995 laws to be construed into conformity with the Constitution by any court, does not oust the original jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 to interpret the Constitution; where a petition makes allegations fitting Article 137(3), the Constitutional Court may proceed to interpret the Constitution and is not obliged to refer the matter to another court.

Land & Property — Compulsory acquisition — Requirement of prior compensation under Article 26(2)

A law that permits the Government to take possession of, or acquire, a person's property before payment of compensation is inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution, which requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of property.

Human Rights — Limitation of rights — Article 26 read with Articles 43 and 44

Although Article 26 is not listed among the non-derogable rights in Article 44, that does not empower the Government to compulsorily acquire property without prior prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation; the general limitation clause in Article 43 cannot be read so as to render lawful the taking of land before compensation under Article 26.

Statutory Interpretation — Clear provisions — Interpretation that would amount to constitutional amendment

Where a provision of the law is clear it must be interpreted as it is; a court will not adopt an interpretation, nor accede to a request, that would in effect amend the Constitution, as amendment of the Constitution is not the court's role.

Legislation cited (12)

Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.26
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.43
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.274
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.110
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.244
Land Acquisition Act Cap 226 s.7(1)
Land Acquisition Act Cap 226 s.6
Land Acquisition Act Cap 226 s.3

Cases cited (8)

Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
Re Sheik Abdul Sentamu & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 1998)
Richard Mwami v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 821 of 2013)
Pyarali Abdu Rassaul Ismail v Adrian Sibo (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 1997)
Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment & 40 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2011)
Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
Charles Onyango Obbo & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
Paul K. Ssemwogerere & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)

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.