Wakilii

Baku & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)

Supreme Court · [2006] UGSC 5 · 2006 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Constitutional Court's dismissal of consolidated constitutional petitions challenging a statutory bar on appeals in parliamentary election petitions
Decision
Appeal dismissed; section 67(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2001 held not inconsistent with the Constitution

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 · distinguished in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 37 citing cases on record, 24 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Supreme Court, by a majority of five to two, dismissed the appeal. It held that Article 86 of the Constitution conclusively vests jurisdiction over parliamentary election disputes in the High Court and, on appeal, the Court of Appeal only, and that Article 140 is purely procedural — directing expeditious hearing — and confers no jurisdiction on any court. Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute and cannot be inferred or implied. Under Article 132(2), appeals to the Supreme Court lie only as prescribed by law; Parliament validly prescribed in section 67(3) that the Court of Appeal's decision is final. Section 67(3) was therefore not inconsistent with the Constitution, and the appellants had no right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; section 67(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2001 held not inconsistent with the Constitution

Facts

The two appellants contested separate constituencies in the parliamentary general elections held on 26 June 2001 and lost. Each filed an election petition in the High Court at Gulu; both petitions were dismissed in January 2002. Their appeals to the Court of Appeal were also dismissed. They sought to bring a second appeal to the Supreme Court but were barred by section 67(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2001, which provides that the decision of the Court of Appeal in an election appeal is final. Each appellant then petitioned the Constitutional Court for declarations that section 67(3) was inconsistent with Articles 86 and 140 of the Constitution and infringed their right of appeal. The consolidated petitions were dismissed by a majority of three to two. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that Articles 86 and 140, read together and harmonised with Article 132, conferred appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in election matters.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitution, in particular Articles 86 and 140, confers on the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to hear second appeals in parliamentary election petitions from the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether section 67(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2001, providing that the decision of the Court of Appeal in an election appeal is final, is inconsistent with Articles 86 and 140 of the Constitution and therefore null and void under Article 2(2).
  3. Whether the appellants had a right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the dismissal of their election petitions.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of Courts — Appellate Jurisdiction is a Creature of Statute
There is no such thing as inherent appellate jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute or the Constitution and cannot be inferred, implied, or established by cross-reference.
Electoral Law — Parliamentary Election Petitions — Right of Second Appeal to the Supreme Court
Article 86 of the Constitution conclusively confers jurisdiction over parliamentary election disputes on the High Court at first instance and the Court of Appeal on appeal only, and confers no right of appeal to the Supreme Court in election matters.
Statutory Interpretation — Constitutional Interpretation — Procedural versus Jurisdiction-Conferring Provisions
Article 140 of the Constitution is a procedural directive requiring courts to hear and determine election disputes expeditiously; it presupposes that jurisdiction has been conferred elsewhere and does not itself confer jurisdiction on the High Court, Court of Appeal, or Supreme Court.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — Appeals Prescribed by Law under Article 132(2)
Under Article 132(2) of the Constitution an appeal lies to the Supreme Court only from such decisions of the Court of Appeal as may be prescribed by law made by Parliament, and the power to prescribe which decisions are appealable carries an implied power to prescribe those that are not.
Electoral Law — Constitutionality of Statutory Bar on Appeals — Parliamentary Elections Act 2001 s.67(3)
A statutory provision making the decision of the Court of Appeal final in parliamentary election appeals is a valid exercise of Parliament's power under Article 132(2) and is not inconsistent with Articles 86 and 140 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (8)

  • Attorney General v Shah (1971) EA 50
  • Baku Raphael Obudra and Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Crane Finance Co Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Major General Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Serugo v Kampala City Council (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295
  • Hunter v. Southam
  • Law Society of Upper Canada v Skapinker [1985] 1 SCR

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baku & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005) [2006] UGSC 5 (15 March 2006)
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.