Wakilii

Male H. Mabirizi v Attorney General & Karuhanga & 5 Others v Attorney General & Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal 2 of 2018; Constitutional Appeal 3 of 2

Supreme Court · Male_H._Mabirizi_v_Attorney_General_&_Karuhanga_&_5_Others_v_Attorney_General_&_Uganda_Law_Society_v_Attorney_General_(Constitutional_Appeal_2_of_2018;_Constitutional_Appeal_3_of_2 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated constitutional appeals from the Constitutional Court's majority decision on petitions challenging the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2018
Decision
Appeal dismissed (inferred from the failure of the resolved issues); the removal of presidential and Local Council V age limits by the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2018 upheld as valid. Final orders not visible in the provided text.

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 Supreme Court considered consolidated appeals challenging the Constitutional Court's upholding of the removal of presidential and Local Council V age limits by the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2018. The Court held that Article 102(b), prescribing the President's age qualification, is not part of the basic structure of the 1995 Constitution and was validly amended by Parliament under its Article 259 powers without a referendum. It found no derogation of the appellants' right to a fair hearing before the Constitutional Court and overruled the preliminary objections. The grounds challenging the basic-structure analysis, the enactment process, and the conduct of the hearing failed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (inferred from the failure of the resolved issues); the removal of presidential and Local Council V age limits by the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2018 upheld as valid. Final orders not visible in the provided text.

Facts

In September 2017, Hon. Raphael Magyezi, MP for Igara West, moved a private member's bill to amend the 1995 Constitution. After amendments at the committee-of-the-whole-House stage (including extending the tenure of Parliament and Local Government Councils from five to seven years and reinstating presidential term limits), Parliament passed the bill and the President assented to it on 27 December 2017, making it the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2018. The Act, among other things, removed the age limits (Articles 102(b) and 183) for the office of President and Local Council V Chairperson. Aggrieved citizens, including the appellants, petitioned the Constitutional Court at Mbale challenging the enactment process and provisions. By a 4-1 majority, the Constitutional Court struck down the provisions extending tenure and reinstating term limits, but upheld the removal of the age limits as validly passed. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court against the upholding of the age-limit removal.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court misdirected themselves on the application of the basic structure doctrine.
  2. Whether the majority erred in holding that the entire process of conceptualizing, consulting, debating and enacting the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2018 did not contravene the 1995 Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.
  3. Whether the Justices erred in holding that the violence/scuffle inside and outside Parliament during the enactment of the Act did not contravene the Constitution.
  4. Whether the Justices erred when they applied the substantiality test in determining the petition.
  5. Whether the majority misdirected themselves in holding that the removal of the age limit for the President and Local Council V offices was not inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution.
  6. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in holding that the President elected in 2016 is not liable to vacate office on attaining the age of 75 years.
  7. Whether the Justices derogated the appellants' right to a fair hearing, injudiciously exercised their discretion and committed the alleged procedural irregularities, and if so, what is the effect on the decision of the Court.
  8. What remedies are available to the parties.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Basic Structure Doctrine — Age Qualification of the President
The age qualification of the President under Article 102(b) (and of the District Chairperson under Article 183(2)(b)) is not part of the basic structure of the 1995 Constitution, and Parliament may amend it under its general legislative power without the approval of the people in a referendum.
Constitutional Law — Amendment of the Constitution — Limits of Parliament's Amending Power
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is limited and cannot be exercised to abrogate or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution; entrenched provisions forming the basic structure can only be altered with the consent of the people through a referendum under Articles 255 and 260.
Constitutional Interpretation — Approach to Construing the Constitution
The Constitution must be read as an integrated whole, with each provision sustaining the others, and given a broad, liberal, generous and purposive interpretation that effectuates the spirit of the instrument rather than a narrow or legalistic one.
Constitutional Petitions — Cause of Action under Article 137(3)
A constitutional petition under Article 137(3) sufficiently discloses a cause of action where it describes the act or omission complained of, identifies the constitutional provision alleged to be contravened, and prays for a declaration; a petition challenging the actions of Parliament in passing a bill that has become law is competent and not premature.
Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 82 of the Supreme Court Rules
A memorandum of appeal must set out grounds concisely and without argument or narrative, specifying the points alleged to have been wrongly decided; grounds that are argumentative, repetitive or inconcise offend Rule 82 and are ordinarily liable to be struck out.
Appeals — Objection to Competence — Rules 78 and 98 of the Supreme Court Rules
A respondent challenging the competence of an appeal on the ground that no appeal lies must proceed by application to strike out under Rule 78 and obtain leave under Rule 98(b); an objection raised informally, without leave and occasioning no prejudice, will be overruled.
Appeals — Interference with the Exercise of Discretion by a Lower Court
An appellate court will interfere with the exercise of discretion by a court of original jurisdiction only where the judge misdirected himself on the principles governing the discretion, took into account matters he ought not to have considered or failed to consider matters he ought to have, or where the exercise of discretion was plainly wrong.

Legislation cited (40)

Cases cited (26)

  • Ssemwogerere v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Law Society (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Okello v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2005)
  • Kobusingye v Nyakana (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2008)
  • Hwang Sung Ltd v M & D Timber Merchants and Transporters Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Matembe v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2005)
  • Cardinal Nsubuga vs Makula International Ltd (1982)
  • Patel v Wambuga (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
  • Bitamisi v Rwabuganda (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2014)
  • Hamid v Roko Construction (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Serugo v Kampala City Council & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Baku Raphael & Anor v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Nsekikubo & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
  • Mbogo & Others v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Mwijukubi & 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • American Express International Banking Ltd v Atul [1990-94] EA 10
  • Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
  • Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789
  • Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh 41 DLR (1989) AD 165
  • Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa [1995] ZACC 8
  • Njoya & Others v Attorney General & Others [2004] LLR 4788 (HCK)
  • Attorney General v Rev. Christopher Mtikila (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2009)
  • Mbabazi v Museveni (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Male_H._Mabirizi_v_Attorney_General_&_Karuhanga_&_5_Others_v_Attorney_General_&_Uganda_Law_Society_v_Attorney_General_(Constitutional_Appeal_2_of_2018;_Constitutional_Appeal_3_of_2
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.