Baryayanga v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2013)

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 applicant sought a temporary injunction restraining government from implementing the IGG's recommendation to cancel the procurement of an EPC contractor for the Karuma Hydro Power Project, pending a constitutional petition. The Court restated the conditions for a temporary injunction (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) and the requirement of a status quo to preserve. It found there was no status quo: cabinet, by binding collective decision, had directed cancellation, the contracts committee had rejected all bids, and the procurement process had ceased to exist. The Attorney General's contrary opinion was overtaken by the cabinet decision. Granting the injunction would be in vain and would question a legitimate executive decision. The application was dismissed, each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Application for a temporary injunction dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.

Facts

The applicant filed Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2013 challenging the powers of the Inspector General of Government (IGG). The IGG, acting on a whistle-blower complaint of corruption in the procurement of an EPC contractor for the Karuma Hydro Power Project, investigated, found no established corruption, but recommended cancellation of the whole procurement process and the blacklisting of a bidder. On 12 April 2013 cabinet, having considered the IGG's report and the Attorney General's opinion, directed the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development to cancel the procurement. On 23 April 2013 the contracts committee rejected all bids and cancelled the procurement, communicating this to the bidders. The applicant, neither a bidder nor their representative, sought a temporary injunction restraining implementation of the IGG's recommendations pending the petition, relying on an Attorney General opinion that had rubbished the IGG report. The respondent argued the matter was moot as the procurement had already been cancelled and implemented.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the temporary injunction orders sought pending disposal of the constitutional petition.

Orders

• We decline to grant the order(s) sought.
• The application is dismissed.
• Each party bears its own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (17)

• Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules SI 91 of 2005 r.23(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.64(c)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.64(e)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules Directions) r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules Directions) r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules Directions) r.43(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules Directions) r.44
• Constitution of Uganda Article 137
• Constitution of Uganda Article 119(3)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 111
• Constitution of Uganda Article 117
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 230(2)
• Inspectorate of Government Act s.8(1)
• Inspectorate of Government Act s.14(6)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.75

Cases cited (15)

• Humphrey Nzei v Bank of Uganda (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2013)
• Giella v Cosman Brown and Company Limited [1973] EA 358
• Osotraco v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
• Goodman Agencies Ltd & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
• Richard Oscar Okumu Wengi v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2007)
• Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (EACJ Appeal No. 4 of 2012)
• The Environmental Action Network Ltd v Joseph Ervau (Civil Application No. 89 of 2005)
• Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd & Another v Reamation Ltd (Civil Reference No. 11 of 1999)
• Registered Trustees of the Church of Uganda v Paul Mainuka (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2002)
• Gordon Sentiba & Others v Inspectorate of Government (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2006)
• Robert Kavuma v Hotel International Ltd
• CUT Tobacco (Kenya) Ltd v BAT (Kenya) Ltd (2001) 1 EA 24
• Hope Mwine Kashozi Assiimwe Cove v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 7 of 2010)
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
• Twinobusingye Severino v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 47 of 2011)

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.

• Crane Bank Limited (In Receivership) v Sudhir & Another (Civil Application 32 of 2020)

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