Wakilii

Murisho & 5 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2017)

Constitutional Court · [2017] UGCC 1 · 2017 Application Referred to Full Bench AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a temporary injunction and stay of criminal proceedings pending a constitutional petition; the court raised, suo motu, the question of its own jurisdiction as constituted.
Decision
Application referred to a bench of five justices of the Constitutional Court for hearing; all subsisting interim orders issued by a single justice or a three-judge panel declared null and void.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Constitutional Court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an application for a temporary injunction or stay of proceedings arising from a constitutional petition only when constituted as a bench of five justices under Article 137(2); neither a single justice nor a three-judge panel is seized with such jurisdiction. Section 13 of the Judicature Act applies only to business before the Court of Appeal, a separate court, and cannot be extended to the Constitutional Court. The decisions in George Owor and Olara Otunu were wrongly decided and were not followed; Isabirye was preferred save for its acceptance of a three-judge interim panel. A court's coram must be fixed by positive law, not by inference. The application was referred to a bench of five, and all subsisting single-judge and three-judge interim orders were declared null and void.

Outcome

Application referred to a bench of five justices of the Constitutional Court for hearing; all subsisting interim orders issued by a single justice or a three-judge panel declared null and void.

Facts

The six applicants faced investigation and prosecution before the Anti-Corruption Court Division in Criminal Case No. CO-0096 of 2016. They filed Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2017 challenging the constitutionality of those charges, together with an application seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from further investigation and prosecution, and a stay of the criminal proceedings pending disposal of the petition. The application was supported by the affidavit of the sixth applicant and opposed by both respondents, who filed affidavits in reply. When the application came before a three-judge panel of the Constitutional Court for hearing, the court raised, on its own motion, the question whether it as then constituted, or a single justice, had jurisdiction to entertain an application of this nature. The court noted conflicting prior three-judge decisions and numerous single-judge rulings on similar applications, and addressed the jurisdictional question before any consideration of the merits of the injunction sought.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitutional Court, when constituted as a three-judge panel or by a single justice, has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for a temporary injunction or stay of proceedings arising from a constitutional petition.
  2. Whether section 13 of the Judicature Act, empowering a single justice of the Court of Appeal to exercise the court's powers in interlocutory matters, applies to interlocutory applications before the Constitutional Court.
  3. Whether interim orders may be issued in constitutional applications and, if so, by what coram.

Orders

  • The application is to be placed before a bench of five justices of the Constitutional Court in compliance with Article 137(2) of the Constitution.
  • The Registrar is directed to place the file before a coram of five justices for hearing and determination at the earliest possible date.
  • All interim orders issued by a single justice of the Constitutional Court which are still in force are null and void and of no effect.
  • Any interim or substantive orders of injunction issued by a coram of three justices of the Constitutional Court which are still in force are null and void and of no effect.
  • The Registrar is directed to place all pending constitutional applications before a full coram of the Constitutional Court for determination, including those already heard by a single justice or a coram of three but whose rulings have been delivered.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Coram for interlocutory applications
The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for a temporary injunction or stay of proceedings arising from a constitutional petition only when constituted as a bench of five justices under Article 137(2) of the Constitution; neither a single justice nor a three-judge panel is seized with such jurisdiction.
Statutory Interpretation — Judicature Act s.13 — Powers of a single justice confined to the Court of Appeal
Section 13 of the Judicature Act, which empowers a single justice to exercise the powers of the Court of Appeal in any interlocutory cause or matter before the Court of Appeal, applies only to business before the Court of Appeal and not to the Constitutional Court, which is a separate court with separate jurisdiction established under Article 137 of the Constitution.
Statutory Interpretation — Plain meaning rule — Clear and unambiguous words
Where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous they must be given their ordinary and natural meaning irrespective of the consequences, the words themselves best declaring the intention of the legislature.
Constitutional Law — Coram of a court must be fixed by positive law — Subsidiary rules cannot vary the Constitution
The coram of a court of law must be expressly and positively set out in positive law and cannot be established by inference or interpretation; rules of court cannot vary the coram of the Constitutional Court fixed by Article 137 of the Constitution.
Statutory Interpretation — Article 274 of the Constitution — Statutes enacted after the Constitution are not 'existing law'
A statute enacted after the coming into force of the Constitution is not 'existing law' within Article 274 and cannot be construed with the modifications and adaptations permitted for existing law to conform with the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Interim orders in constitutional matters — Article 137(7)
Interim orders have no proper place in constitutional applications; Article 137(7) requires the court to hear and determine petitions as soon as possible, and interim orders issued without jurisdiction are null and void.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (11)

  • James Isabirye v Attorney General (Constitutional Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2007)
  • George Owor v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 38 of 2010)
  • Olara Otunu v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 26 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Law Society (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • The Returning Officer Kampala v Margaret Ziwa (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1997)
  • Lukwago Erias v Attorney General and Kampala Capital City Authority (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
  • Maj. Gen. James Kazini v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 8 of 2008)
  • Hon. Jim Muhwezi v Attorney General and Inspectorate of Government (Constitutional Application No. 18 of 2007)
  • Alenyo George William v Attorney General, Law Council and Juliet Nasuna (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2000)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Murisho & 5 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2017) [2017] UGCC 1 (23 February 2017)
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.