Wakilii

Bwengye and 13 v Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 200 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Article 50 of the Constitution and Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules for declarations on alleged discriminatory representation of universities on statutory legal bodies
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on merits

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 High Court dismissed an application seeking declarations that provisions of the Law Development Centre Act and Advocates Act discriminate against 13 universities by giving preferential representation only to Makerere University on statutory legal bodies. The Court held that the motion was defective for failing to specify grounds as required by the enforcement procedure rules, that jurisdiction to declare statutory provisions invalid lies with the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution, and that injunctions cannot be granted against non-parties not served with the application.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on merits

Facts

Bwengye Deusdedit, purporting to act in the interest of 13 universities accredited to teach law, their students, staff and alumni, brought an application challenging provisions of the Law Development Centre Act Cap 132 and Advocates Act Cap 265/267 which provide for Makerere University to be represented on the Law Development Centre Management Committee, the Law Council and the Committee on Legal Education and Training, while other accredited law faculties have no such representation. The Applicant claimed this violated constitutional rights to equality, dignity, freedom from discrimination and the right to participate in governance. He sought declarations of invalidity, injunctions against the statutory bodies, orders for immediate representation of all 13 universities, and compensation of UGX 10,000,000 per year per university. The Respondent filed preliminary objections challenging the Applicant's locus standi, the jurisdiction of the High Court to declare statutory provisions invalid, and the propriety of seeking an injunction against non-parties not served with the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant complied with Rule 8(1)(d) of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules SI No.31 of 2019 by failing to specify grounds in the notice of motion.
  2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to declare provisions of the Law Development Centre Act Cap 132 and Advocates Act Cap 265/267 invalid.
  3. Whether an injunction can be granted against non-parties who were not served with the application and not given opportunity to be heard.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Human Rights Enforcement — Mandatory Requirements for Motion — Specification of Grounds
A motion under the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules SI No.31 of 2019 must specify the grounds for the application in the notice of motion itself as required by Rule 8(1)(d); referring to grounds contained in a supporting affidavit does not fulfil this mandatory requirement.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Declarations of Invalidity of Statutes — High Court vs Constitutional Court
The High Court has jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 to determine matters relating to enforcement or violation of rights, but jurisdiction to declare provisions of Acts of Parliament invalid is a preserve of the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Notice to Affected Parties — Natural Justice
An injunction cannot be granted against a body or institution that is not a party to the proceedings and has not been served with the application or given opportunity to be heard.

Legislation cited (31)

Cases cited (6)

  • JOSEPH V TIBERONDWA LTD HCC NO.510F 2021
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) v Attorney General (SC Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Mugisha Robert & Bwengye Deusdedit v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 2017)
  • Charles Onyango Obbo and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2002)
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani Godfrey & Another (HCCA No. 17 of 2016)
  • Balibo Ye David and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 376 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bwengye and 13 v Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 200 (20 December 2023)
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.