Attorney General & Anor v Muriisa (Civil Apppeal No. 95 of 2012)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot. The dispute arose from a 2011 local council election whose term had since expired, with fresh national elections held in 2016. The Court held the matter had been overtaken by events and abated, leaving nothing to adjudicate, and dismissed the appeal under Rule 2(2) of its Rules. By way of obiter, the Court observed that had the appeal not abated it would have found for the appellants, because the respondent, having himself filed the judicial review application against them, could not later seek to exclude them from the same proceedings through a preliminary objection on contempt, rendering his own application redundant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as moot and abated

Facts

The respondent had instituted an application for judicial review (Miscellaneous Cause No. 035 of 2012) at the High Court at Mbarara against the Attorney General, Kiruhura District Local Government Council, the Electoral Commission and George Ruyondo. The dispute originated from a 2011 election for chairperson of Local Council III, Buremba sub-county, Kiruhura District. Before the application was heard, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection requiring the appellants to purge themselves of contempt of court for failing to give effect to orders in High Court Election Petition No. 10 of 2011 and Court of Appeal Election Application No. 39 of 2011. The trial judge upheld the objection, holding the appellants in contempt because court orders are issued in rem, and ordered that Mr. Ruyondo vacate office and that the appellants pay costs. The appellants appealed. By the time of the appeal, the 2011-2016 electoral term had expired and fresh national elections had been held in 2016.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal had been overtaken by events and become moot following the passing of the 2011-2016 electoral period.
2. Whether a respondent who initiated a judicial review application could later seek to exclude the opposing parties from the trial by way of a preliminary objection on contempt of court.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, the same having abated.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 2(2)

Cases cited (1)

• National Resistance Movement and Others v Kibaaju (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2012)

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