Wakilii

Attorney General v Kyonjokama Sam and Another (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2002)

Court of Appeal · [2002] UGCA 18 · 2002 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court ruling dismissing an application on preliminary objections
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court found to have had no jurisdiction over the application

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.

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application. Where a matter requires a declaration on interpretation of the Constitution or a determination of the constitutional validity of a law or action, only the Constitutional Court under article 137 has jurisdiction; the High Court under article 50 may only enforce fundamental rights, on a plaint, not declare their existence. The court further held that the Director of Public Prosecutions is not a body corporate capable of being sued, and that under article 250(2) civil proceedings by or against Government must be instituted by or against the Attorney General. The arresting officer could not be sued for discharging official duties.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court found to have had no jurisdiction over the application

Facts

The appellant was arrested in London on allegations of embezzlement of funds belonging to his company and brought to Uganda, where he was charged in Criminal Case No. 1423 of 2000 at Buganda Road Court. His bank accounts at Barclays Bank and the Bank of Uganda were frozen by order of the Chief Magistrate made on 30 August 2000. While the criminal proceedings were ongoing, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2002 in the High Court under article 50 of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, seeking numerous declarations that the prosecution and the freezing of his assets infringed his constitutional rights, together with orders dismissing the criminal case, setting aside the freezing orders, and awarding general and exemplary damages. The respondents raised preliminary objections, principally that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, that constitutional interpretation matters belonged to the Constitutional Court, that the DPP and the arresting officer could not be sued, and that the matter was res judicata and time-barred. The trial judge upheld most objections and dismissed the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2002.
  2. Whether an application seeking declarations on constitutional interpretation could be brought in the High Court under article 50 of the Constitution or only in the Constitutional Court under article 137.
  3. Whether the applicant was pursuing the correct parties, in particular whether the Director of Public Prosecutions and the arresting officer could be sued.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the High Court awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Article 137 Constitutional Interpretation vs Article 50 Enforcement of Rights
Questions of interpretation of the Constitution and declarations as to the constitutional validity of a law or action fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under article 137; the High Court under article 50 may only enforce fundamental rights and freedoms and not declare their existence or interpret the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Rights — Proper Procedure under Article 50
An action under article 50 must be brought on a plaint and purely for enforcement of fundamental rights; it cannot be commenced by notice of motion unless a substantive suit or plaint is pending, and the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules apply only in the Constitutional Court, not the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Proper Parties — Suits Against Government under Article 250(2)
Under article 250(2) of the Constitution, civil proceedings by or against the Government must be instituted by or against the Attorney General; the Director of Public Prosecutions, not being a body corporate with power to sue or be sued, cannot be sued and such a suit is incompetent.
Administrative Law — Immunity of Officers — Acts Done in Discharge of Official Duties
A police or judicial officer acting within the scope of official duties cannot be personally sued for discharging constitutional or official functions and is protected by law, including section 48 of the Judicature Act, unless he acted beyond the scope of his duties or maliciously.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (3)

  • Onyango-Obbo and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Arulu John v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 1997)
  • Olushola Ov... Attorney General and Others

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Kyonjokama Sam and Another (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2002) [2002] UGCA 18 (20 May 2002)
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.