Dabule & 2 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Appeal 3 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2015] UGSC 20 · 2015 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Constitutional Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the appellants' grievance over the unrecovered accounts left to be pursued before an ordinary court.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 held that the Legal Notices freezing the appellants' bank accounts, made under section 26A of the Banking Act 1969, ceased to have the force of law when that Act was repealed by the Financial Institutions Act 1993 without re-enacting section 26A; the subordinate legislation lost its statutory base and was not saved under section 12 of the Interpretation Act or section 54(2) of the repealing Act. As the Notices were no longer in force, no question of constitutional inconsistency arose. A mere allegation that continued freezing infringed the right to property under Article 26 raised no question of constitutional interpretation, so the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction under Article 137. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

Following the 1979 fall of Idi Amin's government, the Banking Act 1969 was amended in 1980 to add section 26A, empowering the Minister of Finance to order banks to freeze the accounts of persons associated with or benefiting from the former regime. Under that power the Minister made Legal Notices No. 2 of 1982 and Nos. 2 and 3 of 1984, freezing the appellants' accounts, which were transferred to the Bank of Uganda and invested in treasury bills. In 1993 the Financial Institutions Act repealed the Banking Act 1969 without re-enacting section 26A. In 1995 the Minister directed commercial banks to defreeze the accounts, but the appellants were unable to recover their money despite extensive correspondence with the banks, Bank of Uganda and the Ministry of Finance. The appellants petitioned the Constitutional Court, claiming the Legal Notices remained in force and were inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution's protection of property. The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition, holding the Notices had been repealed before the Constitution took effect. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether Legal Notices No. 2 of 1982 and Nos. 2 and 3 of 1984, made under section 26A of the Banking Act 1969, were repealed by the Financial Institutions Act 1993 or remained in force.
If the Legal Notices remained in force, whether they were inconsistent with the appellants' constitutional right to protection from deprivation of property.
Whether the Bank of Uganda's alleged continued freezing of the appellants' accounts gave the Constitutional Court jurisdiction to grant redress under Article 137 of the Constitution.

Orders

The appeal is dismissed.
No order is made as to costs, both in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Repeal — Effect on subordinate legislation

Subordinate legislation ceases to have the force of law when the enactment under which it was made is repealed and not re-enacted, unless it is the subject of an express saving.

Statutory Interpretation — Saving provisions — Section 12 Interpretation Act

Under section 12 of the Interpretation Act a statutory instrument is saved on repeal of its parent Act only where the repealed Act or part of it is re-enacted and the instrument is not inconsistent with the repealing Act; absent re-enactment the instrument loses its statutory base.

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137

The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 is limited to questions whose determination depends on the interpretation of the Constitution; a mere allegation that a constitutional provision has been violated does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction.

Constitutional Law — Enforcement of rights — Article 50 distinguished from Article 137

Alleged violations of fundamental rights are enforceable under Article 50 by a competent court of first instance; the Constitutional Court was not established merely to enforce the Constitution against infringement where no question of interpretation arises.

Legislation cited (14)

Banking Act 1969 s.26A
Banking Act 1969 s.26B
Banking Act (Amendment) Statute 18 of 1980
Financial Institutions Statute No. 4 of 1993 s.54(1)
Financial Institutions Statute No. 4 of 1993 s.54(2)
Interpretation Act s.12
Interpretation Act s.14
Interpretation Act s.16
Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 21(1) and (2)
Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26(1) and (2)
Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28
Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 50
Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137(3) and (4)
Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)

Cases cited (8)

Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1989)
Attorney General of Gambia v Jobe [1985] LRC (Const.) 556
Sempebwa v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1987)
Sureschandra Ghalani v Chandrakant Patel (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2004)
Kimani v Attorney General [1969] EA 502
Impressa Infortunato Federici v Irene Nabwire (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
Attorney General v Major General D. Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

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.