Wakilii

Carolyne Turyatemba & 4 Ors v Attorney General & anor (Const Petition No 15 of 2006)

Court of Appeal · [2011] UGCA 6 · 2011 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition brought under Article 137 of the Constitution challenging the allocation of public lands to third parties
Decision
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 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 Constitutional Court dismissed the petition. It held the supporting affidavit was not incurably defective, applying Article 126(2)(e) substantive justice, though inadmissible newspaper hearsay was severed. The petition was only partly competent: declarations against the respondents were proper, but orders cancelling third-party leases and titles could not be granted because those registered proprietors were not parties and had not been heard, contrary to Article 28. On the merits, since the Church of Uganda never lodged a lawful application to acquire the suit lands, mere neighbourhood created no enforceable interest; the respondents' allocations to third parties were neither a violation of freedom of religion under Articles 29(1)(c) and 37 nor discriminatory under Article 21.

Outcome

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The petitioners, parishioners of All Saints Cathedral, Church of Uganda, Nakasero, brought a constitutional petition on their own behalf and on behalf of fellow parishioners. They challenged the respondents' allocation of three parcels of land neighbouring the cathedral — the "UBC Land", "Mutineer Valley Park" and the "Nkemba Plot" — to private third parties. The Church of Uganda had, from August 2001, expressed interest in acquiring adjoining land, writing letters to the Minister of Public Service and the Minister of Water, Lands and Environment. The Government gave no positive response, and the lands were later allocated to private developers. Land used by parishioners for parking near State House was fenced off. The petitioners contended these acts, undertaken without consulting the church, amounted to discrimination and breached their freedom to practice, profess and promote their religion. The respondents denied any contravention, asserting the petitioners held no legal or enforceable interest in the suit lands and never lodged any lawful application to acquire them through the Uganda Land Commission.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit of the second petitioner in support of the petition was incurably defective and ought to be struck out.
  2. Whether the petition was incompetent in so far as it sought orders and declarations against persons who were not parties to the petition.
  3. Whether the allocation and fencing off of the suit lands, to the exclusion of the Church of Uganda, breached the petitioners' right to practice, manifest and promote their religion contrary to Articles 29(1)(c) and 37 of the Constitution.
  4. Whether the allocation, change of user and grant of leases of the suit lands to third parties, other than the Church of Uganda, was discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 21(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
  5. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Hearsay — Admissibility of Newspaper Articles
Newspaper articles are inadmissible as hearsay because they are reported statements of persons who are neither parties to nor witnesses in the case, and are not admissible under the res gestae principle; however, facts within such an article that are expressly admitted by the opposing party are admissible to that extent.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Effect of Failure to Distinguish Knowledge from Belief
An affidavit's failure to distinguish paragraphs based on knowledge from those based on belief is a mere procedural irregularity that does not, of itself, render the affidavit incurably defective, since Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requires the administration of substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.
Constitutional Law — Natural Justice — Orders Affecting Non-Parties
A court cannot grant orders cancelling leases or certificates of title of registered proprietors who are not parties to the proceedings, as doing so would condemn them unheard contrary to the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution; a petition seeking such relief is incompetent to that extent.
Human Rights — Freedom of Religion — Distinction between Freedom of Conscience and Manifestation of Belief
Freedom of thought and conscience is an absolute right immune from limitation, whereas freedom to manifest one's religion or belief is not absolute and may be subjected to limitations prescribed by law that are necessary in a democratic society to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others.
Land & Property — Public Land — No Enforceable Interest from Mere Neighbourhood
Mere neighbourhood or adjoining occupation of land does not vest in a person any enforceable legal or equitable interest in adjacent public land; a party who never lodges a lawful application to the Uganda Land Commission under the Land Act cannot complain that its allocation to third parties infringed its rights.
Human Rights — Non-Discrimination — Requirement of Proof and Enforceable Interest
The right against discrimination under Article 21 is not absolute, as not all differences in treatment offend human dignity; a claimant alleging discriminatory allocation of land must prove both an enforceable interest in the land and that different treatment was based on a prohibited ground.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General v Tinyefunza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ssemogerere and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999)
  • South Dakota vs North Carolina 192 US 268 (1940)
  • R V University of Cambridge [1723] 1 Str. 557 (Fortescue J.)
  • Mukasa v Nambooze (Election Petition No. 4 of 2009)
  • European Court of Human Rights Case of KOKKINAKIS V GREECE: Judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A, No.260 - A
  • European Court of Human Rights, Case of Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek V. France, judgment of 27 June, 2000

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Carolyne Turyatemba & 4 Ors Vs Attorney General & anor (Const Petition No 15 of 2006) [2011] UGCA 6 (8 August 2011)
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.