Wakilii

Uganda Freight Forwarders Association & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2009)

Constitutional Court · [2011] UGCC 12 · 2011 Petition Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition under Article 137(3) challenging the constitutionality of a government contract; determined on a preliminary objection to competence.
Decision
Petition struck out on a preliminary objection; constitutional merits not determined.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 · distinguished 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. Citations steady — 11 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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 Constitutional Court upheld a preliminary objection and struck out the petition without reaching the merits. It held that the petition, filed by the petitioners on behalf of their members, was a representative or group action that required leave of court under Order 1 rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules before filing; no such leave was obtained, rendering it incompetent. The Court further held that the petitioners, being unincorporated associations, have no legal existence and cannot sue or be sued in their own names, and that Order 30 (suits by firms) did not assist them as they were not partnerships carrying on business in common with a view to profit. No order as to costs was made.

Outcome

Petition struck out on a preliminary objection; constitutional merits not determined.

Facts

The Government of Uganda, through the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, entered into a contract dated 4 March 2009 with Great Lakes Ports Ltd for the establishment and management of an Inland Dry Port at Tororo, alleged to grant exclusive clearing, forwarding and handling rights over goods passing through Mombasa for a ten-year period. Two trade associations, the Uganda Freight Forwarders Association and the Uganda Clearing Industry and Forwarding Association, petitioned jointly on behalf of their members, attaching membership lists, to challenge the contract as an unconstitutional monopoly. Both petitioners were unincorporated associations. They did not obtain leave of court before filing. One listed member, Freight Cargo Masters, disowned the petition. The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petition was an improperly constituted representative action and that the petitioners lacked legal capacity. The Court determined the objection before any consideration of the substantive monopoly allegations.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition is properly before the Court.
  2. Whether the contract of 4th March 2009 between the Government and the 2nd respondent created a monopoly in favour of the 2nd respondent.
  3. Whether entering into the contract is inconsistent with and contravenes articles 40(2), 43(1), 21(1), 22(1) and 26(2) of the Constitution.
  4. What remedies, if any, are available.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection of the 2nd respondent upheld.
  • Petition struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Representative Actions — Leave under Order 1 rule 8(1) in Constitutional Petitions
A constitutional petition brought by one or more persons on behalf of numerous others having the same interest is a representative action and requires the prior leave of the court under Order 1 rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; failure to obtain such leave renders the petition incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Capacity to Sue — Unincorporated Associations
An unincorporated association has no legal existence of its own and is incapable of suing or being sued in its own name; a suit or petition brought by such a body is a nullity unless the association is recognised by law.
Civil Procedure — Suits by Firms — Scope of Order 30
Order 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, permitting suits in the name of a firm, applies only to two or more persons carrying on business in common with a view to profit within the meaning of section 2 of the Partnership Act, and does not extend to unincorporated associations that are not partnerships.
Constitutional Law — Standing under Article 50(2) — Organisations Recognised by Law
An organisation invoking Article 50(2) of the Constitution to bring an action against violation of human rights must be an entity recognised by law; an unincorporated association without legal personality does not qualify.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Rule 17 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005
Rule 17 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules 2005, which prevents proceedings being defeated by formal objections or irregularities in documents sent by the Registrar, does not bar preliminary objections directed at defects in the petition itself, and does not curtail the Court's inherent power to protect itself from abuse of its process.
Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court — Article 137
The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is founded on Article 137 of the Constitution; a petition is competent on jurisdictional grounds where it alleges a violation of the Constitution and requires the Constitution's interpretation, irrespective of whether the enabling article is expressly pleaded.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Dr. James Rwanyarare & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2002)
  • The Thoubal District Farmers Association for Natural Calamities v The State of Manipur, The Department of Revenue and The Deputy Commissioner Thoubal Government of Manipur, Writ No. 978 of 2004
  • Okwonga v Anywar & The Church of Uganda [1984] HCB 45
  • Herman Ssemuju v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1998)
  • Campbell v Thompson [1953] All ER 831
  • Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co. Ltd v Frederick Muigai Wangoe [1959] EA 474
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council [2000] 2 EA 514
  • Alenyo George William v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2000)
  • Cheborion Barishaki v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2006)

Cases citing this judgment (11)

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.

Uganda Freight Forwarders Association & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2009) [2011] UGCC 12 (20 November 2011)
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.