Ayena Odongo v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 2017)

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 Constitutional Court (majority) dismissed the petition. On finality, the question whether the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in parliamentary election petitions was conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in Baku Raphael Obudra & Obiga Kania v Attorney General; the issue is res judicata and the Constitutional Court cannot reopen a binding Supreme Court decision, so section 14 of the 2010 amendment is not inconsistent with Article 132(1). On timeliness, the six-month period in section 66(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act is directory, not mandatory; a judgment delivered after six months is valid and not a nullity, though delay may attract damages. Bamugemereire JCC dissented on jurisdiction.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; all declarations and the claim for damages declined.

Facts

The Petitioner was respondent in Election Petition Appeal No. 26 and No. 94 of 2016 arising from a parliamentary election dispute. The appeals were filed in the Court of Appeal on 5 July 2016, heard on 1 June 2017 and determined on 23 October 2017 — beyond the six-month period prescribed by section 66(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005 (as amended by Act 12 of 2010). The Petitioner contended that the late determination was without jurisdiction and a nullity, that it denied him a fair and speedy hearing, and that section 14 of the 2010 amendment — making the Court of Appeal the final appellate court in parliamentary election petitions — unconstitutionally ousted the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 132(1). The Respondent contended the petition raised no question of constitutional interpretation and that the impugned provision was consistent with the Constitution. The Respondent filed no written submissions within the time directed.

Issues

1. Whether section 14 of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act 12 of 2010) is inconsistent with and contravenes Article 132(1) of the Constitution by making the Court of Appeal the final court of appeal in parliamentary election petitions.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal heard and determined the election petition appeals expeditiously and, if not, whether its failure infringed the Petitioner's right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear and determine an election petition appeal after the lapse of the six-month period prescribed by section 14(2) of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act, 2010.

Orders

• Declaration that section 14(2) of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2010 is null and void declined.
• Declaration that the decision of the Court of Appeal was without jurisdiction declined.
• Claim for damages for loss of expected earnings declined for want of pleading and evidence.
• Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (20)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.1
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.86
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.128(4)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.134
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.140
• Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2010 s.14
• Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2010 s.2
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.66(2)
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.66(3)
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.62
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2001 s.67(3)
• Judicature Act s.6
• Judicature Act s.14(2)(b)(i)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
• Advocates Act s.62(1)
• Local Government Act 1997 s.143(2)

Cases cited (25)

• Baku Raphael Obudra and Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
• Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K Njuba and another (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2006)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Besweri Lubuye Kibuka v Electoral Commission and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 1998)
• Edward Byaruhanga Katumba v Daniel Kiwalabye Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Isaac Obiuwevbi v Central Bank of Nigeria, SC No. 266 of 2006
• Elliot et al v The Lessee of Peirsol et al (1828), 1 Pet. 328, 7 L. Ed. 164
• Seaford Court Estates Ltd v Asher [1949] 2KB 481
• Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 1 ALLER 208
• Dawson v Bingley Urban Council [1911] 2 KB 149
• Pickering vs. Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Newspapers pic [1991] 1 ALL ER 622
• Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 456 at 461, [1982] AC 173 at 185
• Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd (in liq) [1949] 1 All ER 544 at 547-548, [1949] AC 398 at 407-409
• Cullimore v Lyme Regis Corporation [1961] 3 All ER 1008
• Montreal Street Ry Co v Normandin ([1917] AC at pp 174, 175)
• David B Kayondo v The Cooperative Bank (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1992)
• Secretary of State for Trade and industry vs Langridge [1991] ALL ER 591
• Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Mohamed Magid Bagalaliwo and 2 others (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1977)
• Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Mbabaali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
• Hon. Jim Muhwezi and 3 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 10 of 2008)
• Theodore Sekikubo & Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
• Charles Onyango Obbo and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 1997)
• Uganda Law Society and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 49 of 2017)
• Krispus Ayena Odongo v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 30 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kajunjube and 3 Others v Kasigwa (Miscellaneous Application 102 of 2022)

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