Oliver Namyeka & 2 Others V Parliamentary Commission (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2013)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial Judge misdirected himself in reading the Constitutional Court decision in the Twinobusingye case as meaning the Attorney General was the correct party for all claims against the Parliamentary Commission. The Constitutional Court had instead applied a functional test: the Commission may sue and be sued only on matters within its statutory functions. Where the claim concerned the unlawful arrest by the Sergeant at Arms, an employee of the Commission, the Commission was a proper party. The earlier ruling that a cause of action existed was correct, all necessary parties were before the court, and the Commission should not have been struck out.

Outcome

Order striking out the Parliamentary Commission set aside; matter remitted to the High Court to continue the hearing to conclusion

Facts

The appellants, directors of a non-governmental organisation, filed a suit in the High Court against the Parliamentary Commission, the Attorney General and Oleny Charles, seeking a declaration that their arrest by the Sergeant at Arms of Parliament, while testifying before the Parliamentary Social Services Committee, was unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional. They alleged they were detained for three days. At the scheduling conference, the Commission raised a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and that it was a wrong party. Justice Kibuuka Musoke rejected the objection, ruling that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The suit was reassigned to Justice Benjamin Kabiito after Justice Kibuuka's transfer. Kabiito, though acknowledging the functus officio principle, relied on the intervening Constitutional Court decision in Parliamentary Commission v Twinobusingye Severino and struck out the Commission as an improperly joined party, finding the Attorney General to be the correct party. The appellants appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge was justified in following the decision in Parliamentary Commission v Twinobusingye Severino to strike out the Parliamentary Commission as a party to the suit.
2. Whether the trial Judge erred in entertaining and ruling on whether the Parliamentary Commission was a proper party when the issue of cause of action had already been decided (functus officio).

Orders

• Appeal upheld with costs to the Appellant.
• The Trial Court is directed to continue the hearing of the case to its conclusion.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10
• Judicature Act s.33
• Administration of Parliament Act s.6(e)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 119
• Constitution of Uganda Article 250
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (7)

• Parliamentary Commission v Twinobusingye Severino (Constitutional Application No. 53 of 2011)
• Paul v UEB (In Liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2008)
• Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S 168(1881)
• Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Ashmore v Corporation of Lloyd's [1992] All ER 486

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