Attorney General v Awor [2014] UGSC 100

Observed later treatment

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 Supreme Court allowed the Attorney General's appeal. It held that the only sanction prescribed by Article 83(1)(g)(h) of the Constitution for a Member of Parliament who abandons the party on whose ticket he was elected (or, as an independent, joins a party) is automatic loss of the parliamentary seat. The provision does not nullify such a member's nomination for election to the next Parliament; failure to resign or vacate the seat is not among the grounds of invalid nomination in section 13 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. The Constitutional Court therefore erred in reading nullification of nomination into the article, and its reasoning was contradictory in deeming the seat already vacated. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; decision of the Constitutional Court set aside in so far as it nullified the nomination

Facts

William Oketcho was elected to the 8th Parliament as Independent Member for West Budama North, having resigned from the NRM after losing its primaries. Before the end of that Parliament's term, he sought and won nomination as the NRM flag bearer for the same constituency for the 9th Parliament while still sitting as an independent MP. The respondent petitioned the Constitutional Court under Article 137(3), contending that Oketcho's conduct in seeking the NRM nomination while sitting as an independent, and continuing to sit and draw emoluments after joining the NRM, contravened the Constitution. The Constitutional Court allowed the petition, holding that under Article 83(1)(g)(h) Oketcho was deemed to have vacated his seat and that his nomination for the 9th Parliament was null and void. The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court against the holding that the nomination was nullified.

Issues

1. Whether Article 83(1)(g)(h) of the Constitution nullifies the nomination of a Member of Parliament for election to the next Parliament where that member failed to vacate or resign his or her seat after changing party allegiance.
2. Whether the Constitutional Court contradicted itself in declaring the nomination invalid for failure to vacate the seat while also holding that the member was deemed to have vacated his seat before that nomination.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.83(1)(g)(h)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.86(1)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.43
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.29(c)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.72(4)
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.86(3)
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.13

Cases cited (6)

• Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
• Selle & Anor v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd (1968) EA 128
• Attorney General of the Gambia v Jobe (1984) AC 689
• Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996)
• South Dakota v North Carolina 192 US 268
• Northman v Barnet London Borough Council (1979) 1 HLR 220

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.

• Attorney General of Uganda v Kwesiga Precious (Civil Appeal No.277 of 2018)
• Kamuli John v Mangadalena Babirye and Others (Civil Appeal No.155 of 2018)

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