Wakilii

Turyagenda v Attorney General (Civil Suit 488 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 43 · 1992 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection raised by defendant
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial with amended plaint

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 High Court held that section 14 of the Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988 does not bar court proceedings concerning a matter under investigation by the IGG. The section protects IGG investigations from court interference, but does not prevent courts from exercising their judicial functions. However, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint, which directly challenged the IGG's investigations, contravened section 14 and were struck out.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial with amended plaint

Facts

The plaintiff sued the Attorney General over a contract involving the supply of food stuff to government institutions. In August 1991, the Inspector General of Government impounded documents relating to the contract as part of an investigation into suspected corruption. The documents had not been released for over 15 months. In the plaint, paragraphs 9 and 10 complained about the impounding and delay. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the matter could not be entertained by the court because it was under investigation by the IGG under section 7(1)(c)(v) of the Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988.

Issues

  1. Whether a civil suit can proceed before the High Court while the same matter is subject to investigations by the Inspector General of Government.
  2. Whether paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint, which challenge the IGG's impounding of documents, contravene section 14 of the Inspector General of Government Statute.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint struck out.
  • Plaintiff granted leave to amend the plaint if desired.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Inspector General of Government — Jurisdiction — Relationship with Judicial Powers
Section 14 of the Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988, which protects IGG investigations from being challenged in court except on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, does not act as a bar to court proceedings touching the same matter that is under investigation by the IGG.
Inspector General of Government Statute — Section 12(2) — Preservation of Judicial Powers
The Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988 was not intended to conflict with judicial powers given to courts. Section 12(2) provides that the Inspector General shall not have power to question or review a decision of any court of law or any matter which is sub-judice, thereby preserving the court's power to continue with its work even when the matter is being investigated by the IGG.
Pleadings — Striking Out — Challenges to IGG Investigations
Paragraphs of a plaint that directly challenge the Inspector General's investigations contravene section 14 of the Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988 and must be struck out, as courts are not permitted to entertain challenges to IGG investigations except on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988 s.7(1)(c)(v)
  • Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988 s.14
  • Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988 s.12(2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyagenda v Attorney General (Civil Suit 488 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 43 (30 November 1992)
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.