Wakilii

Anorld Brooklyn & Company v Kampala Capital City Authority & Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2013)

Constitutional Court · [2014] UGCC 9 · 2014 Reference Answered; Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional reference from the High Court (Commercial Division) under Article 137(5) of the Constitution
Decision
Reference question answered (contract void under Article 2(2)); matter remitted to the High Court for hearing of evidence and possible rephrasing of the question

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. Citations rising — 8 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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

On a constitutional reference under Article 137(5), the Court held that the reference question contained its own answer: it admitted non-compliance with Article 119(5), which requires the Attorney General's legal advice for any contract to which Government is a party. A contract concluded in contravention of Article 119(5) is, under Article 2(2), void to the extent of the inconsistency, and is therefore a bar to payment even where goods and services were supplied and consumed. The Court noted, however, that the question was poorly framed and did not in truth require constitutional interpretation; it remitted the matter to the High Court to hear evidence and, if necessary, rephrase the question. Costs to abide the result of the suit.

Outcome

Reference question answered (contract void under Article 2(2)); matter remitted to the High Court for hearing of evidence and possible rephrasing of the question

Facts

The petitioner, a private limited company dealing in stationery, was the plaintiff in High Court Civil Suit No. 435 of 2011; the first respondent, Kampala Capital City Authority, was a statutory body, and the Attorney General was joined as statutory respondent. On 19 January 2009 the parties entered a contract for the petitioner to supply 1,540 books of business levy and licences to the first respondent. The books were delivered on 16 December 2010. On 7 April 2011 the first respondent paid the petitioner USD 83,160.80, leaving an outstanding balance of USD 156,371.52. When the petitioner demanded payment, the first respondent declined, relying on advice from the Solicitor General that the contract was unenforceable for illegality because the Attorney General's advice had not been obtained as required by Article 119(5) of the Constitution. The petitioner sued to recover the unpaid sum, and when the suit came up in the High Court Commercial Division on 16 October 2012 the court and parties agreed to refer a question of law to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5).

Issues

  1. Whether non-compliance with Article 119(5) of the Constitution, by not obtaining the advice of the Attorney General in a contract, is a bar to payment where goods and services are supplied to and consumed by a government entity.

Orders

  • The reference question is answered in the affirmative: a contract made in contravention of Article 119(5) is void under Article 2(2) of the Constitution.
  • The matter is remitted to the High Court with directions, the answer to the reference not having resolved the legal dispute between the parties.
  • The High Court shall proceed to hear evidence from both parties and may, at an appropriate stage, rephrase the question and send it back to the Constitutional Court for determination.
  • The costs of this reference shall abide the results of the High Court suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Government Contracts — Article 119(5) — Failure to Obtain Attorney General's Advice
A contract or agreement to which the Government is a party, or in which the Government has an interest, that is concluded without the legal advice of the Attorney General contravenes Article 119(5) of the Constitution and is, under Article 2(2), void to the extent of that inconsistency; such non-compliance is therefore a bar to payment even where the goods or services were supplied to and consumed by a government entity.
Constitutional Law — Supremacy of the Constitution — Article 2(2) — Inconsistent Law, Custom or Act Void
The Constitution is the supreme law and the standard against which all other laws are judged; any law, custom or act of whatever nature that is inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency under Article 2(1) and (2).
Constitutional Law — Constitutional References — Article 137(5) — Special and Limited Jurisdiction
On a constitutional reference under Article 137(5), the Constitutional Court exercises a special and limited jurisdiction confined to interpreting the question framed by the referring court; it has no power to amend or rephrase the reference question, and may not entertain additional issues outside the scope of the reference.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional References — Amendment of Reference Question — Rule 20 SI 91 of 2005
An amendment to a reference question may only be made by the parties before the Registrar of the Constitutional Court under Rule 20 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 91 of 2005, and only in respect of issues framed by the lower court.
Statutory Interpretation — Principles of Constitutional Interpretation
The Constitution must be given the widest construction possible in its context according to the ordinary meaning of its words; it is to be read as an integrated whole with no provision destroying another (the rule of harmony), and fundamental rights are to be given a dynamic, progressive and liberal interpretation having regard to evolving standards of human dignity.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Osotraco (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
  • Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment and 40 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2011)
  • Paul K. Semwogerere and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2005)
  • South Dakota v North Carolina 192 US 268 (1904)
  • Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Reference No. 5 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (8)

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.

Anorld Brooklyn & Company v Kampala Capital City Authority & Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2013) [2014] UGCC 9 (4 April 2014)
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.