Karokora v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 45 of 2012)

Observed later treatment

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

The Constitutional Court held that the petition was not res judicata because the High Court, lacking jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution, could not conclusively decide the constitutional question, which falls within the Constitutional Court's exclusive original jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court held that section 13(1) of the Pensions Act, capping pension at 87% of emoluments (435 months), contravenes Article 254(1), which requires that a public officer's pension be commensurate with rank, salary and length of service without any ceiling. The Court allowed the petition, directed the Commissioner of Pensions to recompute and pay the petitioner's pension based on his full 520 months of service with interest, and awarded costs.

Outcome

Petition allowed; section 13(1) of the Pensions Act declared inconsistent with Article 254(1); Commissioner of Pensions directed to recompute and pay the petitioner's pension based on 520 months of service with interest

Facts

The petitioner, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, began working in the Judiciary in July 1963 and retired on 5 November 2006 on attaining the age of 70 under Article 144(1)(a). He had served uninterrupted in the public service for a total of 520 months. In computing his pension, the Commissioner of Pensions disregarded 85 months (about seven years) of his service, taking into account only 435 months on the basis that section 13(1) of the Pensions Act caps pension at 87% of the highest pensionable emoluments. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of this ceiling, contending it conflicts with Article 254(1)'s requirement that pension be commensurate with rank, salary and length of service. The respondent argued the matter was res judicata, the petitioner having earlier litigated his pension computation in the High Court without appealing.

Issues

1. Whether the petition is barred by res judicata.
2. Whether section 13(1) of the Pensions Act cap 286 and regulation 13(2)(c), which cap pension at 87% of pensionable emoluments (435 months), are inconsistent with Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declarations, remedies and redress sought.
4. Whether costs should be awarded.

Orders

• The Commissioner of Pensions is directed to compute and pay the petitioner all his unpaid pension taking into account his entire period of service of 520 months.
• The Commissioner of Pensions pays interest on the unpaid amount at 15% per annum from the date that amount accrued until payment in full.
• The Commissioner of Pensions pays to the petitioner monthly pension computed in accordance with order (1) from date hereof until payment in full.
• Costs awarded to the petitioner against the respondent with interest at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Pensions Act cap 286 s.13(1)
• Pensions Act cap 286 regulation 13(2)(c)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 254(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137(3)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 144(1)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 2(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 272(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 274(1)
• Civil Procedure Act cap 71 s.7
• Civil Procedure Act cap 71 s.27(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Cheborion Barishaki v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2006)
• Kuteesa & 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011)
• Norbert Mao v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2002)
• Kikonda Butema Farm Ltd v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 10 of 2012)
• Advocates for Natural Resources Governance and Development & 2 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2013)
• Greenhalgh v Mallard [1947] 2 All ER 255
• Impressa Infortunato Federici v Nabwire (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Lumu Richard Kizito and Others v Mao Norbert and Others (Constitutional Petition 26 of 2022)
• Musisi v Kanakulya (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2016)
• Malinga & 2 Ors v Akol (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2011)
• Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 13 of 2009)

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