Nagoli v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 2006)

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 constitutional reference made by the High Court during a pending civil appeal, the Constitutional Court held that although the reference disclosed a cause of action under Article 137(5), it could not be maintained in law. The acts of the Minister complained of arose out of a written sale agreement, and until the contractual issues were determined in the pending Civil Appeal in the High Court, those acts could not be challenged as illegal or unconstitutional. The reference was therefore premature. The respondent's point of law in opposition was allowed, and the record of the civil appeal was remitted to the High Court to resolve the contractual issues.

Outcome

Reference held premature and not maintainable; record remitted to the High Court to resolve the underlying contractual issues.

Facts

In 1995 the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development offered for sale Plot No. 21 Kumi Road, Mbale, then administered by the Departed Asians Properties Custodian Board under the Expropriated Properties Act on behalf of the Ministry. The applicant, a sitting tenant, applied to purchase and on 10 November 1995 signed an agreement to pay Ug Shs 12,100,451, paying 10% and undertaking to pay the balance within 60 days. The respondents say that despite reminders and extensions the applicant failed to pay the balance, so in 1998 the Ministry terminated the agreement, offered to refund the 10%, and resold the property to the second respondent, who became the registered owner in 1999. The applicant contends the agreement was terminated unilaterally without notice or hearing, and he appealed the Minister's decision under section 15 of the Expropriated Properties Act. During that civil appeal the trial judge, on his own motion, framed constitutional issues and referred them to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5).

Issues

1. Whether the constitutional reference disclosed a cause of action within the meaning of Article 137(5) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the reference could be maintained in law where the acts complained of arise out of a written contract whose validity is yet to be determined in a pending civil appeal.

Orders

• Respondent's point of law in opposition to the reference allowed.
• Record of Civil Appeal No. HCT-04-CV-CA 0003/2003 remitted to the High Court to resolve the contractual issues involved.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.137(5)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.20
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.21
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.42
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.44(c)
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Cap 87) s.9
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Cap 87) s.15
• Civil Procedure Rules (Cap 71) Order 6 rule 29
• Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005

Cases cited (3)

• Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Nurdin Ali Dewji and Others v Meghiji and Other (1953) 20 EACA 132
• Wycliff Kiggundu Kato v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993)

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.

• Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 915 of 2021)

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