Wakilii

Centre For Health, Human Rights and Development and Other v Attorney General and Another (CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 22 OF 2O1 5)

Constitutional Court · [2022] UGCC 14 · 2022 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(1), (3) and (4) of the Constitution challenging the enactment and provisions of the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2014
Decision
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2014 upheld

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 Constitutional Court dismissed a petition challenging the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2014. It held that the Speaker's alleged failure to ascertain parliamentary quorum did not raise a question for constitutional interpretation, since a breach of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure is not tantamount to a constitutional violation and is redressable elsewhere. Article 38(1) confers a right to participate in governance individually or through representatives but imposes no obligation on Parliament to directly consult the public, so non-consultation of farmers did not invalidate the Act. Applying proportionality, plant breeders' rights under section 13, balanced by the exemptions in section 15, did not contravene the right to property under Article 26.

Outcome

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2014 upheld

Facts

Four civil society organisations petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2014. They contended that the 9th Parliament enacted the Act on 20 December 2013 without the Speaker ascertaining the requisite quorum, contrary to Articles 88 and 94(1) and Rule 23 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure. They further argued that Parliament failed to consult affected communities, particularly farmers, contrary to the right to civic participation under Articles 8A and 38 and Principle XIV. They challenged sections 13 and 15 of the Act, asserting that granting plant breeders exclusive rights while restricting farmers to non-commercial use of protected varieties violated the right to property under Article 26 and threatened food security. The Attorney General denied any quorum deficiency, contended the petition raised no question for constitutional interpretation, and argued the Act promoted food security through balanced incentives. The second respondent, joined in 2016, filed no pleadings or submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the Petition raises issues for constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether the passing of the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2014 without ascertaining whether there was requisite quorum was inconsistent with Articles 2(1) and (2), 88 and 94(1) of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure.
  3. Whether the enactment of the Act without the participation and consultation of the communities to be affected was inconsistent with Principle XIV of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy and Articles 8A and 38 of the Constitution.
  4. Whether sections 13(a) and (b) and 15(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Act are inconsistent with the principle of exhaustion of rights and the right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution.
  5. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137(1) — Limits to Constitutional Interpretation
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 137(1) is confined to the interpretation of the Constitution, and is properly invoked only where a discernible question is raised whose determination is wholly dependent on the interpretation of a specific constitutional provision, beyond the mere allegation of a constitutional violation.
Constitutional Law — Legislative Process — Parliamentary Rules of Procedure — Quorum
A violation of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, including the Speaker's failure to ascertain quorum, is not tantamount to a violation of the Constitution; where determining the alleged breach requires interpretation of the Rules rather than a constitutional provision, it does not invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and may instead be addressed through judicial review of the legislative process in the ordinary courts.
Human Rights — Civic Participation — Article 38 — Public Consultation in Legislation
Article 38(1) confers on Ugandans the right to participate in the affairs of government individually or through their representatives in accordance with the law, but imposes no corresponding obligation on Parliament to directly involve or consult the public in the legislative process; the citizenry's failure to forward views through elected representatives does not render the resulting enactment unconstitutional.
Intellectual Property — Plant Breeders' Rights — Right to Property — Article 26 — Proportionality
Statutory protection of plant breeders' exclusive rights, balanced by limited exemptions permitting non-commercial use by farmers and safeguards for food security, does not contravene the right to property under Article 26; the right to pursue an economic activity is not absolute and may be proportionately restricted to serve legitimate objectives of general interest such as agricultural productivity and food security.
Statutory Interpretation — Purpose and Effect Doctrine — Constitutionality of Statutes
Both the purpose and effect of an impugned statute are relevant in determining its constitutionality, and an unconstitutional purpose or effect can invalidate a statute; where clear and unambiguous, constitutional provisions are to be given their plain and natural meaning, with liberal or purposive interpretation reserved for imprecise or ambiguous language.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (18)

  • Paul K Ssemogerere & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Oloka Onyango & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2014)
  • Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Maj. Gen. David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • George William Alenyo v The Chief Registrar, Courts of Judicature & 2 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 32 of 2014)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka & Others v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Petitions Nos. 49 of 2017 and 5, 10 & 13 of 2018)
  • Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v Anthony Calist Komu (EACJ Appeal No. 2 of 2015)
  • Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumax (SAS 2012 EUECJ C-59/11)
  • Doctors for Life International v The Speaker of the National Assembly & Others. Constitutional Case No. 12 of 2005
  • Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General. Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2016
  • The Minister of Health v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd (2005) ZACC 25
  • US v. Butler. 297 US 1 (1936)
  • R v Big M Drug Mart (1985) 1 SCR 295; The Queen v Big M. Drug Mart Ltd LRC (1986) 332
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999)
  • Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centre For Health, Human Rights and Development and Other v Attorney General and Another (CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 22 OF 2O1 5) [2022] UGCC 14 (15 September 2022)
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.