Ntare Adens v Ssenyonyi and Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2019)

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

In the lead judgment, Mulyagonja JCC held that the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction because the petition disclosed no genuine question of constitutional interpretation: the constitutional provisions relied on were clear and unambiguous, so the grievance was one of enforcement properly brought in the High Court under Article 50, not the Constitutional Court under Article 137. Applying the distinction between a cause of action and jurisdiction drawn in Attorney General v Tinyefuza and Ismail Serugo, she dismissed the petition with no order as to costs as it appeared brought in the public interest. Madrama JCC dissented, finding substantial questions of interpretation concerning Articles 1, 3, 29, 71 and 72 warranting determination on the merits.

Outcome

Petition dismissed by the lead judgment for want of jurisdiction; petitioner left at liberty to file in the appropriate court. Madrama JCC dissented.

Facts

The petitioner alleged that the 1st and 2nd respondents established and mobilised an unregistered political organisation styled interchangeably 'People Power Movement', 'People Power Uganda' and 'People Power', complete with a national leadership structure and regional coordinators unveiled at a 24 July 2019 news conference, and that they offered platforms to candidates in Bugiri, Jinja and Arua by-elections. He alleged the 3rd respondent operated 'The People's Government', held himself out as the 'People's President' and appointed a cabinet and ministers. He contended these activities are reserved to duly registered political parties and contravene Article 72(2), and that the 4th respondent (Attorney General) abdicated a constitutional mandate by failing to halt them. The respondents denied owning any organisation, asserting they acted as individuals exercising freedom of association under Article 29 and the duty to defend the Constitution under Articles 1 and 3.

Issues

1. Whether the petition was improperly before the court, bad in law, frivolous and vexatious, and whether the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to entertain it under Article 137.
2. Whether the petition was brought against the wrong parties by suing the respondents as individuals rather than organisations.
3. Whether 'People Power Movement'/'People Power'/'People Power Uganda' and 'The People's Government' are organisations.
4. Whether the actions of the 1st and 2nd respondents in mobilising political activities and appointing regional coordinators contravene Article 72(2) of the Constitution.
5. Whether the actions of the 3rd respondent in operating 'The People's Government', declaring himself People's President and appointing a cabinet contravene Articles 72(2), 98(1), 103(1) and 114(1).
6. Whether the 4th respondent's failure to halt the activities of the other respondents contravenes Article 119(4)(a) of the Constitution.

Orders

• The petition is dismissed (per the lead judgment of Mulyagonja JCC).
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (26)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.1
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.3
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.29(1)(e)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.43
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.69
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.70
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.71
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.72(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.72(4)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.74
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.98(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.103(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.113(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.114(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.119(4)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.260
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.261
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.262
• Constitution (Amendment) Act 2005 s.15
• Constitution (Amendment) Act 2005 s.16
• Political Parties and Organisations Act s.2
• Political Parties and Organisations Act s.6(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.28
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.29

Cases cited (14)

• Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Jude Mbabali v Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)
• Baku Raphael Obudra & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
• Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Thomas Kwoyelo alias Latoni v Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 36 of 2011)
• George Owor v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 2010)
• Consolidated Constitutional Petitions No 16, 21, 25, 19 & 25 of 2013
• Dr James Rwanyarare & 8 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002)
• Dow v Attorney General [1992] LRC (Const) 623
• Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1979] 2 All ER 21
• State v Makwanyane [1995] 1 LRC 269
• Re Public Service Employee Relations Act [1987] 1 SCR 313
• Collymore & Another v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1969] 2 All ER 1207
• Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Pineview Poultry Products Ltd [1990] 3 SCR 157

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Busingye & Another v The Parliamentary Commission & Another (Constitutional Petition 4 of 2020)
• Kazooba v M.K Creditors Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application 1257 of 2022)

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