Wakilii

Advocates for Natural Resources Governance & Development & 2 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition 40 of 2013)

Constitutional Court · [2013] UGCC 17 · 2013 Petition Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137 challenging the constitutionality of Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and acts of compulsory land acquisition
Decision
Petition succeeded; Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act declared inconsistent with Article 26(2) to the extent it omits prior payment; 2nd respondent's conduct declared a contravention of Article 26(2); first petitioner struck out for unproven capacity

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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 Court held that Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which permits the assessment officer to take possession of land without providing for prior payment of compensation, is inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the 1995 Constitution, which requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of property. As an existing law predating the Constitution, the section is saved under Article 274 and must be read to include the requirement of prior payment. The 2nd respondent's taking possession of the 2nd petitioner's land before payment contravened Article 26(2). The petition succeeded; no order was made as to costs given its public interest character.

Outcome

Petition succeeded; Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act declared inconsistent with Article 26(2) to the extent it omits prior payment; 2nd respondent's conduct declared a contravention of Article 26(2); first petitioner struck out for unproven capacity

Facts

The Government commissioned a project to upgrade the Hoima-Kaiso-Tonya road in Hoima District to facilitate oil exploration and exploitation. The project, implemented by the Uganda National Roads Authority, required acquiring additional land. Government compulsorily acquired land from affected persons under the Land Acquisition Act, including the 2nd petitioner's land at Kyeharo-Kabwoya, taken under Statutory Instrument No. 5 of 2013 dated 8 February 2013. The 2nd petitioner's complaint was that his land was expropriated without prior prompt payment of compensation; he did not dispute the assessed value or quantum. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners contended that the acquisition purportedly relied on Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which they argued was inconsistent with Article 26 of the Constitution. The 3rd petitioner brought the petition in the public interest.

Issues

  1. Whether Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is inconsistent with Article 26(2)(c) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the acts of the 2nd respondent complained of in the petition violated the 2nd petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 26(2)(c) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is nullified to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 26(2) of the Constitution, namely to the extent that it does not provide for prior payment of compensation before government compulsorily acquires or takes possession of any person's property.
  • It is declared that the acts of the 2nd respondent in taking possession of the 2nd petitioner's land prior to payment of compensation contravened his right to property under Article 26(2) of the 1995 Constitution.
  • No order is made as to costs.
  • The first petitioner is struck out as a party for failure to prove its capacity to bring the petition.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Property — Compulsory Acquisition — Prior Payment of Compensation
A law authorising the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of property is inconsistent with Article 26(2) of the Constitution unless it provides for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition.
Constitutional Law — Existing Law — Article 274 — Construction in Conformity with the Constitution
An existing law that predates the 1995 Constitution and is inconsistent with it is not thereby rendered void; under Article 274 it is saved and must be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as are necessary to bring it into conformity with the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Article 274 — Jurisdiction — Powers of All Courts
Every court, tribunal or administrative body has power to apply Article 274 and construe pre-1995 laws in conformity with the Constitution; obvious inconsistencies need not be referred to the Constitutional Court for interpretation under Article 137.
Civil Procedure — Capacity to Sue — Non-Natural Person — Burden of Proof
A petitioner that is not a natural person must prove that it is a person capable of bringing a constitutional petition within the meaning of Article 137; the respondents' failure to challenge capacity does not relieve the petitioner of that burden or amount to an admission.
Costs — Public Interest Litigation — Exercise of Discretion
Costs ordinarily follow the event, but in public interest and constitutional litigation courts should generally decline to award costs so as not to deter the enforcement of fundamental rights and the growth of constitutionalism; each party usually bears its own costs.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (13)

  • Management Committee of Rubaga Girls School v Bwogi Kanyerezi (Civil Application No. 34 of 1999)
  • Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment and 40 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2011)
  • Republic v Elman [1969] EA 357
  • South Dakota Vs. North Carolina 192, US 2681940 LED 448
  • Paul K. Semwogerere & 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2005)
  • Pyarali Abdu Rassaul Ismail v Adrian Sibo (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 1997)
  • Osotraco Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1380 of 1996)
  • Attorney General v Osotraco Limited (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
  • Col (Rtd) Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Prince J. Mpuga Rukidi v Prince Solomon Iguru and Others (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1994)
  • Attorney General v Major Gen. David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Wambugu v Public Service Commission [1972] EA 296

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Advocates for Natural Resources Governance & Development & 2 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition 40 of 2013) [2013] UGCC 17 (8 November 2013)
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.