Wakilii

Center For Health ,Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) & Ors v The Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2013)

Supreme Court · [2015] UGSC 69 · 2015 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from a Constitutional Court ruling striking out a constitutional petition on a preliminary objection
Decision
Appeal allowed; Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011 remitted to the Constitutional Court to be heard on its merits.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 10 (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 10 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 11 citing cases on record, 4 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

On appeal from the Constitutional Court's striking out of a petition challenging government acts and omissions in maternal health care, the Supreme Court held that the petition raised competent questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 137. The political question doctrine has only limited application in Uganda — shielding the Executive or Parliament only where each is properly exercising a mandate vested by the Constitution — and does not oust the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to inquire into acts and omissions alleged to contravene the Constitution. The Constitutional Court erred in declining to hear the petition on its merits. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Constitutional Court to hear Petition No. 16 of 2011 on the merits.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011 remitted to the Constitutional Court to be heard on its merits.

Facts

The appellants — a health-rights NGO and three individuals — filed a constitutional petition alleging that the Government and its health workers failed to provide basic maternal health services, including indispensable maternal health commodities, an adequate number of midwives and doctors, and adequate budgetary allocation, and that the unethical treatment of expectant mothers contributed to maternal deaths, in contravention of named provisions of the Constitution. They sought declarations, compensation for the families of two named women who died during childbirth, and other redress. The Attorney General contended that the petition was speculative and disclosed no question for constitutional interpretation, and raised a preliminary objection based on the political question doctrine. The Constitutional Court upheld the objection and struck out the petition without hearing its merits, holding that it raised no competent questions requiring interpretation and that the matters complained of were political questions reserved to the Executive and Legislature. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in holding that the petition did not raise competent questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution under Article 137.
  2. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in applying the political question doctrine to strike out the petition without hearing its merits.
  3. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in holding that the petition called upon it to review and implement government health policies.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The Constitutional Court is directed to proceed and hear Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011 on its merits.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137
The Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution under Article 137(1) is unlimited and unfettered; where a petition alleges that any act or omission by any person or authority is inconsistent with or contravenes the Constitution, the Court has a mandatory duty to hear and determine it and cannot abdicate that duty.
Constitutional Law — Political Question Doctrine — Justiciability
The political question doctrine has only limited application in Uganda and extends to shield the Executive and Parliament from judicial scrutiny only where the institution is properly exercising a mandate duly vested in it by the Constitution; it does not oust the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to inquire into acts or omissions alleged to be inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Separation of Powers — Checks and Balances
The Cabinet's power to determine, formulate and implement government policy under Article 111(2), and Parliament's functions under Article 79, are not absolute and remain subject to the Constitution; the Constitution's system of checks and balances permits the Constitutional Court to scrutinise whether their acts or omissions conform to the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Standing and Redress under Article 137
A petitioner under Article 137(3) need not have suffered a personal legal grievance to seek a declaration, and the grievance may extend beyond a directly aggrieved person; seeking redress under Article 137(4) does not render a petition bad in law.
Human Rights — Enforcement — Duty of State Organs under Article 20(2)
All organs and agencies of Government are obliged under Article 20(2) to respect, uphold and promote the rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter Four of the Constitution, and the Constitutional Court should not decline to consider the merits of allegations that government acts or omissions infringe those rights.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (16)

  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Uganda Association of Women Lawyers & 5 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2003)
  • Attorney General v Maj. Gen. David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere & Olum (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
  • Paul Ssemogerere & 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Paul Ssemwogerere & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 1999)
  • Oloka-Onyango & 9 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2014)
  • Paul Kawanga ... constitutional Appeal NO. 1 of 2001 (SC)
  • Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
  • Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)
  • Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
  • Zivotofsky v Clinton, 132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012)
  • Bertrand v Attorney General of Quebec [1992] 2 LRC 408
  • Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC)
  • Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37
  • Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC)

Cases citing this judgment (10)

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.

Center For Health ,Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) & Ors v The Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2013) [2015] UGSC 69 (30 October 2015)
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.