Attorney General v Ostraco Limited (Civil Appeal 32 of 2002)

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 Court of Appeal held that article 273 of the Constitution empowers all courts to construe and modify existing unjust or archaic laws to bring them into conformity with the Constitution, without referring the matter to the Constitutional Court. In modifying the proviso to section 15(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act (which barred recovery orders against the Government) so as to grant eviction, the trial Judge acted under article 273 and did not encroach on the Constitutional Court's interpretive jurisdiction under article 137. State immunities are no longer immutable; article 26 protects the registered proprietor's right to property. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the eviction orders confirmed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court eviction orders against the Government confirmed

Facts

Osotraco Ltd was the registered proprietor of Plot No. 69 Mbuya Hill, Kampala, having purchased the property from Uganda Times Newspapers Limited in June 1985 and obtained registration. The property was occupied by employees of the Ministry of Information, who refused to vacate despite a request. The Ministry claimed the property was theirs. Osotraco filed HCCS No. 1380 of 1986 seeking an order of eviction, a permanent injunction, special and general damages, mesne profits, interest and costs. The High Court (Egonda-Ntende J) ruled that the proviso in section 15(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act — which barred courts from ordering recovery of land against the Government and permitted only declaratory relief — was not in conformity with the 1995 Constitution. The Judge construed the proviso under article 273 as inapplicable to the case and ordered vacant possession within 30 days, failing which eviction would issue, with costs. The Attorney General appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge erred in construing section 15(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act as not being in conformity with the Constitution.
2. Whether, in modifying section 15(1)(b) under article 273, the trial Judge usurped the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under article 137.
3. Whether the trial Judge erred in granting an order of vacant possession and eviction against the Government.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• The trial Judge's orders of eviction and costs against the appellant confirmed.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent (costs here and below).

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Government Proceedings Act s.15(1)(b)
• Government Proceedings Act (Cap 77) s.14(1)(b)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.20(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.26
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.273

Cases cited (7)

• Pyarali Abdu Ismail v Adrian Sibo (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 1997)
• Ephrahim v Pastory and Another (1970) LRC (Const.) 757
• Bull v Minister of Home Affairs (1987) LRC (Const.) 547
• Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefunza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1987)
• Attorney General v Silver Spring Hotel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1989)
• N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v State of A.P. AIR (1994) S.C. 2663
• Byne v Ireland and the Attorney General (1972) 1R 241

Cases citing this judgment (21)

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.

• Timbigamba Simon and Others v Ker Kwaro Palabek and Others (Civil Misc. Application No. 150 of 2021)
• Okwarmoi Ben Walter v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 35 of 2024)
• Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2011)
• Nampongo and Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012)
• Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2011)
• Ssekikubo & 10 Ors v National Resistance Movement (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2019)
• Menge v District Local Government (Civil Appeal No. 153 of 2012)
• Administrator General v Kakooza & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2017)
• Nalumansi v Kasande (Civil Appeal 10 of 2015)
• Mahmoud Saad Said & Anor v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1023 of 2015)
• Baryayanga v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2013)
• Anorld Brooklyn & Company v Kampala Capital City Authority & Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2013)
• Kabandize & 20 Ors v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011) followed
• Kakooza v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 253 of 2013)
• Advocates for Natural Resources Governance & Development & 2 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition 40 of 2013)
• Atukwase v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 437 of 2013)
• Attorney General v NIKO Insurance Uganda Ltd (HCCS 240 of 2012)
• Butime Tom v Muhumuza David & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2011)
• Hon Sam Kuteesa & 2 Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 54 of 2011)
• Okwonga and Others v Gulu District Local Council Government (Civil Suit No. 0145 of 2003)
• Mifumi Uganda Limited and 12 Others v Attorney General of Uganda and Another (Constitutional Petition 12 of 2007)

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