Wakilii

Kyagulanyi T/a Bobi Wine v Kampala Metropolitan Police Commander & Anor (MISC. CAUSE NO. 313 OF 2017)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 113 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional enforcement application under Article 50 of the Constitution seeking declaratory orders, permanent injunction, compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violation of constitutional rights
Decision
Application dismissed with no order as to costs

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 High Court dismissed the Applicant's constitutional enforcement application, holding that police cancellation of music shows did not violate constitutional rights to freedom of expression or right to work. The court found the Applicant failed to establish that the music shows were organized to express specific views rather than for entertainment, and failed to provide evidence of business arrangements proving the right to work was violated. Music shows organized solely for entertainment do not fall under regulation of the Public Order Management Act unless organized to express views on matters of public interest.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The Applicant, a Member of Parliament and musician trading as Bobi Wine, had three music shows scheduled in September and October 2017 cancelled by police in Kasese, Kamuli and at Colline Hotel Mukono. Police cancelled the shows after the Applicant allegedly incited violence at a music show at One Love Beach Busabala on 15 October 2017 and made political statements and consultations with members of the public who were not his constituents. The Applicant was subsequently summoned to CID headquarters on 18 October 2017 to record a statement regarding allegations of incitement of violence. The Applicant claimed he anticipated earning UGX 30,000,000 from the Colline Hotel and Kamuli shows, and that he had received and refunded UGX 20,000,000 for the Kasese show, but provided no documentary evidence of these business arrangements.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's right to equal protection of the law under Article 21(1) of the Constitution was violated
  2. Whether the Applicant's right to a fair hearing was violated
  3. Whether the Applicant's right to freedom of speech, expression, association and conscience was violated
  4. Whether the Applicant's right to work was violated
  5. Whether the Respondents are liable for violation of the Applicant's Constitutional guarantees
  6. What remedies are available

Orders

  • Motion dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Freedom of Expression — Burden of Proof — Nexus Between Cancelled Event and Expression
To establish a violation of freedom of expression, an applicant must demonstrate a nexus between the cancelled event and the expression of specific views, showing that the person had uttered words for which they were being persecuted or planned to make certain utterances but was stopped; cancellation of a music show organized solely for entertainment purposes does not per se constitute a violation of freedom of expression.
Right to Work — Burden of Proof — Evidential Requirements
An applicant claiming violation of the right to work under Article 40(2) of the Constitution bears both the legal and evidential burden to prove the violation with supporting documentary evidence such as business contracts, receipts, invoices or payment vouchers; the court cannot adduce its own evidence to support a claim and mere assertion without corroborating evidence is insufficient.
Public Order Management Act — Scope of Application — Entertainment Events
Music shows organized strictly for purposes of entertainment and revelling are not public meetings requiring police notification under the Public Order Management Act 2013 and do not fall under its regulation unless they are organized for the purpose of expressing views on matters of public interest or spontaneously become such; a public meeting does not include a meeting for a social, commercial or industrial purpose.
Freedom of Expression — Limitation — Article 43 Requirements
Any limitation on the enjoyment of constitutional rights under Article 43(2) must not be for purposes of political persecution or detention without trial and must not be beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society; the limitation must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutional right, the means chosen must be reasonable and proportionate, and must impair as little as possible the rights or freedoms in question.
Police Powers — Public Assemblies — Duty to Provide Security
Where police entertain a reasonable belief that disturbances might occur during an assembly, the paramount duty of police is to provide security and supervision in anticipation of disturbances rather than to curtail people's enshrined freedoms and liberties on mere anticipatory grounds; suspicion as a sole basis for stopping an assembly is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Legislation cited (30)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 50
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 21(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 28(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 29
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 29(1)(a)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 29(1)(d)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 40(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 43
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 43(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005) Article 43(2)
  • Public Order Management Act 2013 s.2(1)
  • Public Order Management Act 2013 s.2(2)
  • Public Order Management Act 2013 s.4(1)
  • Public Order Management Act 2013 s.4(2)(d)
  • Public Order Management Act 2013 s.5
  • Public Order Management Act 2013 s.7
  • Police Act s.32(2)
  • Penal Code Act s.50
  • Penal Code Act s.83
  • Evidence Act s.101
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Rules 2008 Rule 7
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 Article 19(2)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 Article 19(3)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976 Article 4
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976 Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 1981 Article 9(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 1981 Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 1981 Article 27(2)
  • European Convention on Human Rights Article 10

Cases cited (7)

  • Onyango Obbo v Attorney General (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Rangarajan v Ram 1990 LRC (Const) 412
  • Dehal v Crown Prosecution Services [2005] ALL E.R (D) 152
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2005)
  • R v Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103
  • Amnesty International and Ors v Sudan [2000] AHRL 297
  • Otto-Preminger Institute v Austria (1995)19 EHRR 34

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyagulanyi T_a Bobi Wine Vs Kampala Metropolitan Police Commander & Anor (MISC. CAUSE NO. 313 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCD 113 (10 May 2019)
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.