Wakilii

Parliamentary Commission v Mwesigye (Constitutional Appeal 8 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 90 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal to the Supreme Court from a Constitutional Court decision declaring a statutory provision unconstitutional
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Constitutional Court's declaration that section 5 of the Act is unconstitutional was upheld

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Constitutional Court's declaration. Although Article 85 empowers Parliament to determine the emoluments of its members, those emoluments are a charge on the Consolidated Fund, so Article 85 must be read together with Article 93. Article 93 requires that any bill, motion or resolution making provision for such a charge be introduced on behalf of Government, not the Parliamentary Commission. Because section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members) Act allows Parliament to amend the schedule of emoluments by resolution without recourse to Article 93, its effect is inconsistent with the Constitution and it is unconstitutional to that extent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the Constitutional Court's declaration that section 5 of the Act is unconstitutional was upheld

Facts

The respondent petitioned the Constitutional Court against the Parliamentary Commission and the Attorney General, alleging that Parliament had on numerous occasions increased the emoluments of its members by resolution under section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act, contrary to Article 93 of the Constitution. Article 93 requires that any bill or motion making provision for a charge on the Consolidated Fund be introduced on behalf of Government. The respondent relied on a 2001 resolution increasing emoluments, which was moved by Hon. Isaac Musumba; although a Minister, he signed it on behalf of the Parliamentary Commission rather than Government. The appellant contended that Article 85 empowered Parliament to determine its members' emoluments and that the Executive could not veto such a determination. The Constitutional Court held section 5 unconstitutional to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 93, and the Parliamentary Commission appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in holding that section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act contravened Article 93 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in interpreting the effect of Article 93 in isolation from the other relevant constitutional provisions, namely Articles 84, 154 and 155.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Interpretation — Reading the Constitution as an Integral Whole
The Constitution must be read together as an integral whole, with no provision being segregated and considered alone or destroying another; all provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and interpreted so as to sustain each other and effectuate the greater purpose of the instrument.
Emoluments of Members of Parliament — Charge on the Consolidated Fund — Articles 85 and 93 Read Together
Although Article 85 authorises Parliament to determine the emoluments of its members, where those emoluments constitute a charge on the Consolidated Fund Article 85 must be read together with Article 93, so that the bill, motion or resolution providing for the increase must be introduced on behalf of Government and not the Parliamentary Commission.
Constitutionality of Legislation — Purpose and Effect Test
In determining the constitutionality of legislation, both its purpose and its effect must be considered; if either the purpose of an Act or the effect of implementing a provision is inconsistent with the Constitution, that provision shall be declared null and void.
Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members) Act — Section 5 — Unconstitutionality
Section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members) Act, which permits Parliament to amend by resolution the schedule of emoluments without recourse to Article 93, is unconstitutional to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 93 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • P.K. Ssemwogerere v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Parliamentary Commission v Mwesigye (Constitutional Appeal 8 of 2016) [2019] UGSC 90 (25 July 2019)
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.