Wakilii

Aboneka Michael & Another V Attorney General (MISC. CAUSE NO. 386 OF 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 188 · 2019 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of rights under Article 50 of the Constitution challenging the recall of Ugandan passports and issuance of East African e-passports
Decision
Application struck out for being incompetently before court

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court struck out an application brought under Article 50 of the Constitution challenging the recall of Ugandan passports and issuance of East African e-passports. The court held that Article 50 requires a clear demonstration that a fundamental right or freedom has been infringed or threatened. The applicants failed to cite any specific constitutional right allegedly violated or to plead facts supporting such violation. The proper remedy would have been judicial review of the administrative decision, not an enforcement of rights action under Article 50.

Outcome

Application struck out for being incompetently before court

Facts

The applicants brought an action seeking to restrain the Ministry of Internal Affairs from recalling Ugandan passports and issuing East African e-passports, arguing this was being done without legal basis. They claimed the recall breached contracts with citizens, lacked sensitization, and had not been properly domesticated under Ugandan law. The respondent opposed, stating that passports are government property subject to recall, that the issuance of e-passports complied with Uganda's obligations under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and the Chicago Convention, and that the East African Council of Ministers had directed member states to issue e-passports by January 2018. The respondent argued the application did not demonstrate any infringement of fundamental rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant application is properly before the court
  2. Whether the recall of the old machine readable passports and issuance of the new East African e-passports to Ugandan citizens is in accordance with the law
  3. Whether the exclusive use of the national identity card for identification purposes as a requirement for acquisition of the East African passport is legal
  4. Whether the issuance of the EAC passports violates the principle of sovereignty and amounts to a breach of contract with the people of Uganda
  5. Whether the respondent exercised due care to provide mass sensitization of the public on the issuance of EAC passports
  6. Whether the applicants are entitled to any of the prayers sought

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Rights — Article 50 Requirements — Pleading and Proof
For an application to be properly brought under Article 50 of the Constitution, the applicant must demonstrate that a fundamental right or freedom guaranteed under the Constitution has been infringed or is threatened with infringement. It is not sufficient to assert the existence of a right; the facts set out in the pleadings must establish the existence of the right and its breach.
Constitutional Law — Public Interest Litigation — Requirements and Restrictions
Public interest litigation should be restricted to cases where there is gross violation of fundamental rights affecting a class or group, or where basic human rights are invaded in a manner that shocks the judicial conscience. It should not be used for personal or political gains, publicity, or other oblique reasons. The court must assess whether the applicant is a genuine public interest litigant acting in good faith.
Constitutional Law — Right to Passport — Nature of the Right
While Article 29(2)(c) of the Constitution guarantees every citizen a right to a passport or other travel document, the passport remains the property of the Government of Uganda and may be withdrawn at any time. The citizen's right is one of possession, not ownership. The government's recall and replacement of passports does not per se violate the constitutional right to a passport where citizens continue to have access to replacement travel documents.
Administrative Law — Remedies — Choice of Procedure — Judicial Review vs Enforcement of Rights
Where an applicant challenges an administrative decision or policy as illegal or procedurally flawed, but does not plead the infringement of any specific constitutional right or freedom, the proper remedy is judicial review under the appropriate administrative law procedure, not an application for enforcement of rights under Article 50 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Campbell C.J in R v Bedfordshire 24 L.J.G.B 84
  • Ferreira v Levin;NO; Vryyenhoek v Powell 1996 (1)BCLR 1; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC), para 233-234
  • Lawyers for Human Rights vs Minister of Home Affairs 2004 (7) BCLR 775(CC); 2004 (4) SA 125(CC), para 18
  • Pastor Martin Sempa v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 71 of 2002)
  • Ogago Brian Abangi v Uganda Communications Commission (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2013)
  • Human Rights Network for Journalists and Another v Uganda Communications Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 219 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Aboneka Michael & Another V Attorney General (MISC. CAUSE NO. 386 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 188 (16 August 2019)
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.