Wakilii

Mukisa v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Petition 17 of 2018; Consolidated Constitutional Petition 25 of 2018)

Constitutional Court · [2023] UGCC 121 · 2023 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated constitutional petition under Article 137(3) and application for a temporary injunction challenging the constitutionality of numerous laws and practices
Decision
Petition dismissed by majority on the merits; application for a temporary injunction dismissed; 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 petitioner challenged roughly thirty laws and practices as unconstitutional and sought an injunction suspending them. The Constitutional Court held that its Article 137 jurisdiction is engaged only where a petition shows, on its face, that constitutional interpretation is genuinely required; mere allegations of violation are insufficient. Several grounds had already been conclusively determined and were res judicata, while others failed for want of proof. The majority dismissed the petition on its merits; Madrama JCC, in a minority opinion, would have struck it out as frivolous, vexatious and misjoining unrelated causes of action. The application for a temporary injunction was dismissed, every law being presumed constitutional until declared otherwise. No order as to costs.

Outcome

Petition dismissed by majority on the merits; application for a temporary injunction dismissed; no order as to costs

Facts

The petitioner, acting in person, brought a constitutional petition under Article 137(3) seeking declarations that approximately thirty laws, rules and practices were inconsistent with the Constitution. The impugned provisions included the Penal Code Act's rogue-and-vagabond offence, the Judicature (Court Vacations) Rules, statutory-notice requirements under the Government Proceedings Act, committal provisions of the Trial on Indictments Act and Magistrates Courts Act, filing and non-refundable fees, requirements for recommendations to obtain passports or jobs, charges for police reports, leave and notice requirements for appeals, national selection of students, mandatory registration of telephone numbers, provisions of the Administrator General's Act and Succession Act, COVID-19 lockdown measures under the Public Health Act, and aspects of the 2021 electoral roadmap and nomination fees. The petition was supported solely by the petitioner's own affidavit. The petitioner also filed a separate application seeking a temporary injunction halting implementation of the impugned provisions. The Attorney General denied the averments and contended that the provisions were consistent with the Constitution. Several of the questions raised had already been determined in earlier Constitutional Court petitions.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition raised genuine questions for constitutional interpretation under Article 137 sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
  2. Whether the approximately thirty impugned laws, rules and practices were inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.
  3. Whether a temporary injunction could be granted suspending the operation of the impugned laws and actions.
  4. Whether grounds previously and conclusively determined by the Constitutional Court could be re-litigated in the petition.
  5. Whether bundling a multiplicity of unrelated questions into one petition rendered it frivolous and vexatious.

Orders

  • The Constitutional Petition is dismissed.
  • Constitutional Application No. 25 of 2018 for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction — Article 137 — Threshold for Constitutional Interpretation
For the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to be invoked, the petition must show on its face that the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution is genuinely required; it is not enough merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated.
Constitutional Law — Presumption of Constitutionality — Injunctions Suspending Laws
Every law is presumed constitutional until declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court; accordingly the court cannot grant an injunction suspending the operation of laws or actions taken under them.
Constitutional Law — Burden of Proof — Shifting Burden
In constitutional matters the petitioner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that a fundamental right has been contravened; only once that is established does the burden shift to the state to justify the limitation.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Omnibus Petitions — Misjoinder of Unrelated Causes
A petition that bundles a multiplicity of diverse and unrelated questions of constitutional interpretation into one suit, supported by a single affidavit, is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be struck out for misjoinder of causes that cannot conveniently be tried together.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Re-litigation of Determined Constitutional Questions
Questions of constitutional interpretation that have already been conclusively determined by the Constitutional Court raise no new question for interpretation and cannot be re-litigated; once the petition is determined on its merits the dispute between the parties becomes res judicata.
Civil Procedure — Court Vacations — Judicature (Court Vacations) Rules
Court vacations, weekends and public holidays do not contravene the rights to a fair and speedy hearing under Articles 28(1) and 126(2)(b), because criminal business continues and civil matters of an urgent nature are still entertained on a certificate of urgency during vacation.
Constitutional Law — State of Emergency — Public Health Measures — Article 46
Measures taken to control an infectious disease, including COVID-19 lockdown directives made under the Public Health Act, are not inconsistent with the Constitution, as Article 23(1)(d) permits deprivation of liberty to prevent the spread of infectious disease and Article 46 protects measures reasonably justifiable for dealing with a state of emergency.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (14)

  • [2017] UGSC 11
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • P.K. Ssemogerere and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • The Attorney General of Tanzania vs. Rev. Christopher Mtikila, (2010) EA 13
  • Okello John Livingstone and 6 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2005)
  • South Dakota v. South Carolina 192, USA 268, 1940
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • [2004] UGSC 81
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Uganda v Atugonza Francis (Constitutional Reference No. 31 of 2010)
  • Francis Tumwesige Ateenyi v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 36 of 2018)
  • Nampongo and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012)
  • Barihaihi Grace Peter and Fred Biryomumaiso v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2011)
  • Rtd Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Y.K. Museveni (Presidential Election Petition No. 2 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukisa v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Petition 17 of 2018; Consolidated Constitutional Petition 25 of 2018) [2023] UGCC 121 (24 May 2023)
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.