Wakilii

Rwanyarare and others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application 6 of 2002)

Constitutional Court · [2003] UGCC 1 · 2003 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion in the Constitutional Court for an order staying the operation of a statutory provision, arising from a pending constitutional petition
Decision
Application allowed; operation of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act stayed pending final disposal of Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002

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.

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 applicants, petitioners challenging section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act 2002, sought to stay that provision pending their petition. The Constitutional Court held that although the Judicature Statute and section 65(e) of the Civil Procedure Act gave no authority, it retained inherent jurisdiction under section 101 of that Act and rule 1(3) of its Rules, plus power to grant redress under Articles 50 and 137(4), to make orders meeting the ends of justice. Under the 1995 Constitution, judicial power deriving from the people, the Crown-immunity rationale behind section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act no longer bars relief. Application allowed; the provision stayed pending the petition.

Outcome

Application allowed; operation of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act stayed pending final disposal of Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002

Facts

The applicants are the petitioners in Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002, which challenges the constitutionality of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act 2002. That provision compels the existing political parties referred to in Article 270 of the Constitution to register as bodies corporate within six months of the Act's commencement or cease to legally exist. The deadline for registration was 16 January 2003. Given the Constitutional Court's busy schedule, it was unlikely that the petition would be heard and finally disposed of before that deadline. The applicants contended that, absent interim relief, their petition would be rendered nugatory, and the rights of Ugandans belonging to the existing parties to associate and assemble would be violated. They accordingly applied for an order staying the operation of section 6(3) and (4) pending the final disposal of the petition.

Issues

  1. Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to suspend or stay the operation of a law, namely section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act 2002, pending final disposal of the related constitutional petition.
  2. Whether an order staying or suspending a provision of an Act of Parliament amounts to an injunction against the Government that is prohibited by section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act.

Orders

  • The application is allowed.
  • The operation of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act is stayed pending the final disposal of Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002.
  • Costs shall abide the result of the petition.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional Remedies — Power to Grant Redress under Article 137(4)
The Constitutional Court is empowered under Article 137(4) of the Constitution to grant an order of redress, in addition to a declaration, where it considers it necessary upon interpretation of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Competence under Article 50
The Constitutional Court is competent to grant redress under Article 50 of the Constitution where a fundamental right or freedom is infringed or threatened, but only upon determination of a petition brought under Article 137(3).
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Interlocutory Orders
Even where specific statutory and rule-based provisions confer no express authority, the court retains inherent jurisdiction under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act and rule 1(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process.
Constitutional Law — State Immunity — Injunctions against Government under the 1995 Constitution
Because the 1995 Constitution vests judicial power in the people and provides that it be exercised in their name, the Crown-immunity rationale underlying section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act no longer holds, and that provision must be construed under Article 273(1) with such modifications as bring it into conformity with the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Interim Relief — Stay of Operation of a Challenged Statute
An order staying the operation of a challenged statutory provision in order to preserve the status quo while its constitutionality is being determined does not constitute an injunction against the Government.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1989)
  • Olive Casey Jaundoo v Attorney General of Guyana [1971] AC 972
  • Levesque v Attorney General of Canada (1985) 25 DLR 184
  • N. Nagendra Rao and Co v State of A.P. AIR 1994 SC 2663
  • Byrne v Ireland and The Attorney General [1972] IR 241

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwanyarare and others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application 6 of 2002) [2003] UGCC 1 (16 January 2003)
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.