Wakilii

Hassan Bassajjabalaba and Others v Legal Brains Trust (Constitutional Appeal No. 4 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2025] UGSC 37 · 2025 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal and cross-appeal from the decision of the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2012
Decision
Appeal allowed on a preliminary point of law; the Constitutional Court's judgment in Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2012 set aside for want of jurisdiction; cross-appeal disallowed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 Constitutional Court's jurisdiction under article 137(1) is restricted solely to constitutional interpretation; it is invoked only where determination of the controversy depends primarily on interpreting the Constitution. Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2012 — challenging Kampala City Council contracts and related financial transactions for lacking the Attorney General's approval under article 119(5) — turned on strongly contested questions of fact and matters of rights enforcement, and the meaning of article 119(5) had already been settled in Theodore Ssekikubo. The petition therefore raised no question for constitutional interpretation, and the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction and wrongly entertained it. Appeal allowed on the preliminary point of law; the Constitutional Court's judgment, declarations and orders were set aside; each party to bear its own costs.

Facts

Between January 2000 and December 2011 the third to sixth appellants executed a series of contracts and leases with the then Kampala City Council (KCC) for the management of the Nakasero, Nakivubo Shauri Yako, St. Balikuddembe and Nakawa markets and the Constitutional Square. Those arrangements were later terminated, whereupon the appellants sought and partly obtained compensation for wrongful termination from KCC and the Government of Uganda, financed through public funds and through bank borrowings backed by letters of comfort and guarantee issued by the Bank of Uganda in favour of several commercial banks. The respondent, Legal Brains Trust, petitioned the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2012) alleging the contracts were executed without the Attorney General's approval contrary to article 119(5), and that the compensation and supporting financial instruments were unconstitutional, fraudulent and illegal. By a 3-2 majority the Constitutional Court overruled the appellants' preliminary objections, partly decided the petition for the petitioner, declared the contracts null and void and ordered a refund, prompting this appeal and cross-appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's petition before the Constitutional Court was incompetent for offending the Constitutional (Petitions and References) Rules, the Court of Appeal Rules and the rules governing affidavits by being prolix, argumentative and vexatious.
  2. Whether the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, that is, whether it raised a question requiring constitutional interpretation under article 137(1) of the Constitution as opposed to enforcement of rights and contested questions of fact.
  3. Whether the Constitutional Court may grant redress under article 137(4) only where the petition is explicitly lodged under that constitutional provision.

Orders

  • Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2012 did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court as delineated in article 137(1) of the Constitution and was therefore wrongly entertained by that court.
  • The judgment, declarations and orders of the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2012 are hereby set aside.
  • The appeal substantially succeeds and the cross-appeal is disallowed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137(1) restricted to constitutional interpretation
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under article 137(1) of the Constitution is limited solely to the interpretation of the Constitution; unless the question before it depends for its determination on the interpretation or construction of a provision of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Cause of action versus jurisdiction — Mere allegation of violation insufficient
For the Constitutional Court's interpretative jurisdiction to be invoked, a petition must do more than allege a constitutional violation; the question or controversy before the court must solely or primarily depend on constitutional interpretation for its determination.
Constitutional Law — Stare decisis — Petition seeking interpretation already settled by the Supreme Court is moot
Where the Supreme Court has already authoritatively construed a constitutional provision, a petition seeking fresh interpretation of that same provision is moot and improperly before the Constitutional Court, which is bound by article 132(4) to follow the Supreme Court's decision.
Constitutional Law — Contested questions of fact — Constitutional Court not a trial court of fact
The Constitutional Court is a court of original jurisdiction in constitutional interpretation and not a trier of fact; questions for constitutional interpretation must arise from pure questions of law grounded in uncontested facts, so a petition turning on strongly contested factual allegations does not invoke the court's interpretative jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law — Article 119(5) — Whether an entity is governmental is a question of mixed fact and law
The meaning of article 119(5) on the requirement of the Attorney General's legal advice being settled, the incidental question whether a contracting entity is governmental or one in which government has an interest is a question of mixed fact and law turning on evidence and statutory interpretation, which lies outside the Constitutional Court's domain.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional petitions — Competence — Prolixity and argumentative affidavits
A constitutional petition that substantially complies with the format prescribed by the Constitutional Court Rules will not be struck out merely for lack of conciseness, nor will an argumentative supporting affidavit be wholly struck down, where the offending portions can be expunged and the respondents were sufficiently on notice to defend themselves, courts being enjoined by article 126(2)(e) to administer substantive justice without undue recourse to technicalities.
Constitutional Law — Remedial jurisdiction — Article 137(4) — Redress need not be expressly pleaded
The Constitutional Court may grant an order of redress under article 137(4)(a) of its own motion where the redress flows directly from the declarations issued, even if not expressly pleaded under that clause; but recourse to its remedial jurisdiction is impossible unless its interpretative jurisdiction has first been properly invoked.

Legislation cited (29)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.119(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(6)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.159(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.176
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.180
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.257
  • Public Finance and Accountability Act 2003 s.25
  • Bank of Uganda Act s.29
  • Local Governments Act, Cap 138 s.96(3)
  • Local Governments Act, Cap 138 s.99(4)
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019
  • Judicature Act, Cap 13 s.10
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 s.66
  • Constitutional (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.3
  • Constitutional (Petitions and References) Rules 2005 r.23
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.66(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 2 r.9

Cases cited (25)

  • Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others [2015] UGSC 19
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza [1998] UGSC 34
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General [1999] UGSC 23
  • Raphael Baku & Another v Attorney General [2003] UGSC 3
  • Centre for Health, Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) & 3 Others v Attorney General [2015] UGSC 69
  • Male Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka v Attorney General [2018] UGSC 55
  • Paul Semwogerere & Others v Attorney General [2004] UGSC 49
  • Rose Kateeba & Others v Justus Musyenzi & Others [2025] UGSC 6
  • Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General & Inspector General of Government (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2005) [2007] UGCC 7
  • Arnold Brooklyn & Company v Kampala Capital City Authority & Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2013) [2014] UGCC 1
  • Eng. Edward Turyomurugyendo & Others v Attorney General & Others [2019] UGCC 2
  • Perez Kakumu v Attorney General & National Forest Authority [2006] UGCC 8
  • Mbabali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi [2014] UGCC 15
  • Charles Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (UEB) [1999] UGCC 1
  • Kikonda Butema Farm v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 10 of 2012)
  • Kikungwe Issa v Standard Chartered Bank (Civil Suit No. 409 of 2004)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited v East African Development Bank [1993] UGSC
  • Captain Harry Gandy v Caspair Air Charters Ltd (1956) 23 EACA 139
  • The Iron & Steelwares Ltd v C. W. Martyr & Company [1956] EACA 175
  • Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC); [1997] ZACC 6
  • Vancouver (City) v Ward 2010 SCC 27
  • Gongo & Others v Zimbabwe, SADC Tribunal Case No. SADCT 05 of 2008
  • Attorney General v Momodou Jobe [1984] AC 689
  • Attorney General v Whiteman [1991] 2 WLR 1200
  • Boodram v Attorney General & Another (Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1994)
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.