Wakilii

Prof. J. Oloka-Onyango and Others v Amama Mbabazi and Others (Civil Application No 02 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2016] UGSC 40 · 2016 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in a presidential election petition before the Supreme Court
Decision
Application granted; applicants admitted as amicus curiae on terms limiting the brief to points of law concerning electoral reform and judicial remedies.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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 granted nine Makerere law lecturers leave to intervene as amicus curiae in presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016. Holding that no specific provisions govern amicus admission in such petitions, the Court applied section 39(2) of the Judicature Act and comparative principles, and, invoking Article 132(4), held that Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel (requiring amicus participation only at the Court's invitation) was no longer good law. Although the respondents alleged the applicants lacked unique expertise and were biased, the Court found they had proven expertise, that objections to neutrality are a factor but not determinative, and that their proposed brief on electoral reform and structural interdicts raised novel points serving the wider public interest.

Facts

Nine senior lecturers of law at Makerere University School of Law applied to the Supreme Court for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016, brought by Amama Mbabazi against Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the Electoral Commission and the Attorney General. They sought leave to file a joint amicus brief and make oral and written submissions, contending they were experts in constitutionalism, human rights and good governance whose contribution would assist the Court and improve the electoral process. The petitioner raised no objection. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the applicants brought nothing novel, lacked special or unique expertise, were neither independent nor neutral (pointing to articles authored by some applicants said to reveal bias against the first respondent), sought to expand the dispute beyond the agreed issues, and would prejudice the parties given the limited time for determining the petition.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have expertise in the relevant area of the law.
  2. Whether the proposed amici are neutral.
  3. Whether the intervention would expand issues already agreed upon by the parties.
  4. Whether the points of law the applicants intend to canvass are novel and would aid the development of jurisprudence.

Orders

  • The applicants are allowed to file a written brief to the Court as amicus curiae.
  • The brief shall be strictly limited to points of law, specifically proposing reforms relating to Presidential Elections and proposing judicial remedies related thereto.
  • The brief shall not go into matters of evidence or raise new issues not before the Court.
  • The brief shall be filed in the Court and served on the other parties by 17 March 2016.

Key headnotes

Amicus Curiae — Admission — Absence of Specific Provisions
Where no specific statutory or procedural provisions govern the admission of an amicus curiae in presidential election petitions, the Court may, under section 39(2) of the Judicature Act, be guided by principles developed by courts in other jurisdictions in determining whether to admit an amicus.
Judicial Precedent — Departure from Earlier Decision — Article 132(4)
Under Article 132(4) of the Constitution the Supreme Court may depart from its own previous decisions where it deems it right to do so; accordingly the rule in Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel Ltd, that an amicus may appear only at the Court's invitation and not on a party's application, is no longer good law.
Amicus Curiae — Neutrality and Impartiality — Weight of Objections
An amicus must be neutral and impartial, but objections by the parties alleging bias of a proposed amicus are a factor to be taken into account and not the determining factor; the Court retains ultimate control over what it takes from the amicus and may take only what is relevant and non-partisan.
Amicus Curiae — Novelty of Legal Points — Development of Jurisprudence
An amicus should canvass points of law that are novel and aid the development of jurisprudence; submissions on structural interdicts and on the legal implications of state inaction on prior judicial recommendations are novel points that may benefit the Court.
Presidential Election Petition — Scope of the Court's Role — Public Interest
Given the powers vested in the Supreme Court under Articles 104(3) and 104(5) of the Constitution, its role in a presidential election petition extends beyond the aggrieved candidate to the wider public interest, and that great public interest may outweigh objections to the admission of an amicus curiae.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.1
  • Constitution of Uganda art.3(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.17
  • Constitution of Uganda art.54
  • Constitution of Uganda art.104(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.104(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.104(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.127
  • Constitution of Uganda art.128(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.132(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda Objective XXIX
  • Presidential Elections Act s.59(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules S.I. 13-11 r.2(2)
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules S.I. No. 13 of 2001 reg.15
  • Judicature Act s.14
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.39(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 52

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1989)
  • Edward Fredrick Sempebwa v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 1986)
  • NSSF & Another v ALCON International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Uganda v Thomas Kwoyelo (Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2012)
  • Secretariat of the Joint UNAIDS Programme on HIV/AIDS v Human Rights Awareness Promotion Forum (HRAPF) & Attorney General of Uganda (Application No. 03 of 2015)
  • Uhai Eashri, Health Development Initiative-Rwanda v HRAPF & Attorney General of Uganda (Applications No. 20 & 21 of 2015)
  • Dr. Ally Possi, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria v HRAPF & Attorney General of Uganda (Application No. 01 of 2015)
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.