Wakilii

Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba & Anor (Civil Appeal 2 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2015] UGSC 22 · 2015 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal to the Supreme Court from a Constitutional Court decision on a constitutional petition
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Constitutional Court declaration that section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution upheld

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 UNRA's appeal and upheld the Constitutional Court's declaration that section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 226) is inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution to the extent it permits compulsory acquisition of land without prior payment of fair and adequate compensation. The Constitutional Court properly exercised its original jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution even though existing pre-1995 law could also be construed under Article 274; that jurisdiction is not ousted. Article 26 cannot be read with Article 43 to permit taking possession before compensation, and the appellant's emergency and derogation arguments raised academic issues not before the Court. Each party to bear its own costs.

Facts

The Government of Uganda commissioned a project to upgrade the Hoima–Kaiso–Tonya road in Hoima District to facilitate oil exploration, implemented by the appellant, Uganda National Roads Authority. Upgrading the road required acquiring additional land. The Government proceeded under the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 226) to compulsorily acquire land from affected persons, taking possession of the respondents' land under Statutory Instrument No. 5 of 2013 without first paying compensation. The respondents petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging it contravened their right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution by permitting the assessment officer to take possession once an award is made, without prior payment. The respondents did not dispute the value of the land or the quantum assessed. The Constitutional Court declared the section inconsistent with Article 26(2) to the extent it omits prior compensation, and UNRA appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in determining the petition concerning section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act after finding the inconsistency was obvious and required no constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether the petition raised a question for constitutional interpretation within the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction under Article 137.
  3. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in holding the appellant's acts unconstitutional without evaluating the evidence.
  4. Whether Article 26 of the Constitution is a derogable right that, read with Article 43, permits compulsory acquisition of land before payment of compensation in exceptional circumstances such as disasters or emergencies.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment of the Constitutional Court and the orders made therein upheld.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Compulsory Acquisition — Prior Payment of Compensation under Article 26
A law authorising compulsory acquisition of property must provide for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition; section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which permits the assessment officer to take possession once an award is made without requiring prior payment, is to that extent inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137 and Existing Law under Article 274
The power conferred on other courts by Article 274 to construe existing pre-1995 law in conformity with the Constitution does not oust the Constitutional Court's original jurisdiction under Article 137 to interpret the Constitution; where a petition makes allegations falling within Article 137(3), a case for constitutional interpretation is made out and the Constitutional Court may resolve it.
Human Rights — Derogation of Rights — Limits of Article 43 in Relation to Article 26
Although Article 26 is not listed among the non-derogable rights in Article 44, it cannot be read together with the general limitation in Article 43 so as to permit the Government compulsorily to acquire property without prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession.
Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning — Constitutional Provisions Read as an Integrated Whole
Where a provision of the Constitution is clear it must be interpreted as it stands; courts may not read in new words that would amount to a constitutional amendment, and the Constitution is to be read as an integrated whole with no one provision destroying another.
Civil Procedure — Academic Questions — Court Will Not Decide Issues Not Before It
A court will not determine academic issues that are not before it; the question whether compensation may be deferred in situations of natural disaster or emergency did not arise where the acquisition concerned a planned government project and no emergency was in issue.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 43
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 44
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 274
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 2(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 110
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 244
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 50
  • 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 Appeal 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 & Another 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. Ssemogerere & 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.