Imaniraguha John v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 55 of 2010)

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.

Holding

On an application for interim orders pending the hearing of a main application for a temporary injunction and stay of proceedings and a constitutional petition, the single Justice held that a single Justice of the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine applications for interim orders, distinct from temporary injunctions or stays barred to a single justice under the Court of Appeal Rules. Applying the settled principles for interim relief, the Court found a prima facie case, that an alleged violation of a non-derogable right could not be compensated in damages, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. The interim orders sought, including custody of the applicant's three children and a stay of related proceedings, were granted.

Outcome

Interim orders granted, including a stay of related proceedings and interim custody of the applicant's three children pending determination of the main application and the constitutional petition

Facts

The applicant/petitioner brought a constitutional petition and a main application for a temporary injunction and stay of proceedings, complaining of threatened unconstitutional arrest and prosecution, abuse of his liberty, harassment, interference with his property and quiet possession, violation of his privacy and his parental rights over his three children, and the undermining of court orders, by the respondents and their agents. The respondents, including the Attorney General, the second respondent (mother of the children), and the Inspector General of Police, denied the allegations, made counter-accusations, asserted the police were acting lawfully to preserve life, property and order, and pointed to a background of longstanding domestic violence, contending the young children should be in the second respondent's custody. Pending the hearing of the main application and petition, the applicant sought interim orders protecting his liberty and property, restraining prosecution, granting him interim custody of the children, and staying related criminal and civil proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether a single Justice of the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for interim orders.
2. Whether the interim orders sought by the applicant/petitioner should be granted.
3. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.
4. Who bears the costs of the application.

Orders

• An interim order issues barring the respondents, their subordinates, representatives, workmen or agents from apprehending the applicant/petitioner, interfering with his liberty, or trespassing on or interfering with quiet possession of his property (including Plot 6 York Terrace, Kololo) until determination of the main application and the petition or further orders.
• An interim order issues restraining the respondents, their officials, subordinates, agents or representatives from interfering with the applicant's privacy and liberty and from arresting or prosecuting him until disposal of the main application and the constitutional petition or further orders.
• An interim order of custody issues directing that custody of the three children, Joshua Gatete Imaniraguha, Imaniraguha Johnson and Tonny Gatete Imaniraguha, remain with the applicant/petitioner for their upkeep, education and provision of necessities until disposal of the main application and petition.
• An interim order issues staying proceedings in Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. NAK-CO-678/2010, Nakawa High Court Civil No. NAK-F.C-14A-2010 and Miscellaneous Application No. 226 of 2010 pending determination of the main application No. 54 of 2010 and Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2010 or further orders.
• The costs of this application to abide the outcome of the final determination and disposal of the substantive application for a temporary injunction and stay of proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (15)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(7)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50(1) and (2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(3)(b) and (4)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44(a)
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.98
• Judicature Act s.13(1)
• Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, S.I. 91 of 2005, r.10
• Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, S.I. 91 of 2005, r.23
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.53(1)

Cases cited (9)

• Brig. Gen. James Kazini v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2009)
• James Isabirye v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2007)
• Olara Otunnu v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 26 of 2010)
• George Owor v Attorney General and Hon. William Oketcho (Constitutional Application No. 38 of 2010)
• Giella v Cassman Brown and Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358
• Noor Mohammed Kassamali Virji v Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 80
• Robert Kavuma v M/S Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1990)
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
• Hon. Jim Muhwezi v Attorney General and the Inspector General of Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007)

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