Lubuye Kibuka v Electoral Commission and Another (Constitutional Petition 8 of 1998)

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

On a reference under Article 137, the Constitutional Court held that section 143(2) of the Local Government Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution. Although the section itself provides no mechanism to extend the three-month period, section 173 imports the Parliamentary Elections law, including rule 19 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996, which empowers the court to enlarge time. The trial judge therefore had jurisdiction to extend time, and doing so would not offend Makula International Ltd: that authority bars only the use of residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge statutory time where no enactment or rule confers a discretion to do so.

Outcome

Section 143(2) of the Local Government Act declared not inconsistent with the Constitution; the matter remitted to the trial judge to continue hearing the election petition.

Facts

Following the Kalangala District Council elections, the second respondent was declared the elected LC V Chairperson by the Electoral Commission. The petitioner challenged the result in Election Petition No. 12 of 1998 in the High Court. After leave was granted to hear the petition during the court vacation, the hearing began on 10 August 1998. Counsel sought adjournments, and a question arose whether the petition could be heard and determined beyond the three-month period prescribed by section 143(2) of the Local Government Act. The trial judge considered that, on the authority of Makula International Ltd, he had no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge time fixed by statute. Both parties and the court took the view that, insofar as section 143(2) limits the time within which the matter must be determined, it might be inconsistent with the Constitution. The High Court accordingly referred to the Constitutional Court the question whether section 143(2) is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Issues

1. Whether section 143(2) of the Local Government Act, which requires an election petition to be heard and determined within three months, is inconsistent with the Constitution.
2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to enlarge the time fixed by section 143(2) of the Local Government Act for hearing and determining an election petition.

Orders

• Section 143(2) of the Local Government Act is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.
• The High Court had jurisdiction to enlarge the time laid down in section 143(2).
• The matter is sent back to the trial judge to carry on with the hearing of the petition.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Local Government Act 1997 s.139
• Local Government Act 1997 s.143(2)
• Local Government Act 1997 s.173
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
• Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Statute 1996 (Statute No. 4) s.121
• Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996 rule 19
• Indian Limitation Act 1908 s.3
• Indian Limitation Act 1908 s.5
• Indian Limitation Act 1908 art.177
• Civil Procedure Code 1966 (Tanganyika) Order 22 r.4
• Fatal Accidents Act 1846 s.3

Cases cited (4)

• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Osman v United India Insurance Co Ltd [1968] EA 102
• Pritam Kaur v S Russell & Sons Ltd [1973] 1 All ER 617
• Hughes v ... (1862) 13 CBNS 324

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Sitenda Sebalu v Sam Njuba and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 07 of 2007)

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