Wakilii

Ulrich and Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 310 of 2018)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 97 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for enforcement of constitutional rights under Articles 50(1), 40(2) and 139(1) of the Constitution
Decision
Plaintiffs' constitutional enforcement suit dismissed after court found no violation of rights

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 court held that the first plaintiff's arrest by police was lawful, as it was conducted in the course of investigating suspected unlawful possession of government documents after the audit contract was terminated. The plaintiff was not formally detained. The court found that the plaintiffs' business premises were closed by the landlord for unpaid rent and by the Uganda Revenue Authority for tax arrears, not by police. The plaintiffs relocated to new premises and continued their business operations, thus their constitutional right to practice their profession under Article 40(2) was not violated. The suit was dismissed.

Outcome

Plaintiffs' constitutional enforcement suit dismissed after court found no violation of rights

Facts

The plaintiffs, trading as Nexia Johnson & Johnson Certified Public Accountants, won a contract in 2012 to audit the Office of the Auditor General as part of a consortium with two other firms. In November 2014 and February 2015, the plaintiffs submitted draft reports. Internal disputes arose within the consortium, with the other members alleging that the first plaintiff excluded them from decisions. The Parliamentary Commission terminated the contract in February 2015. The first plaintiff was requested to return all documents belonging to the Auditor General but relocated the documents to his firm's office on the 12th floor of Uganda House instead. The Auditor General reported this to police. Before police searched the premises on 14 July 2015, the landlord had closed the office for unpaid rent arrears and the Uganda Revenue Authority had sealed it on 5 March 2015 for tax arrears of UGX 19,445,662. The first plaintiff was arrested on 25 June 2015 to assist with investigations and released the same day on police bond. The plaintiffs subsequently relocated their business to Kira Road and later re-registered their company at the same Uganda House premises.

Issues

  1. Whether the first plaintiff's rights were violated when he was arrested and detained.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs' right to practice their profession and to carry on their occupation was violated by the defendant.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Right to Practice Profession — Article 40(2) — Burden of Proof
A plaintiff alleging violation of the constitutional right to practice their profession under Article 40(2) of the Constitution bears the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's actions directly infringed that right.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Arrest — Lawful Arrest Without Warrant — Reasonable Suspicion
An arrest without a warrant is lawful where the arresting officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the person arrested had committed or is about to commit a crime. The test is that of a reasonable person acting without passion or prejudice, with the onus on the person making the arrest to justify the conduct. An arrest properly made by police in the course of investigating a crime does not amount to a breach of fundamental rights.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Weight — Consistency with Oral Testimony
Documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. Where documentary evidence supports oral evidence, the oral evidence becomes more credible and compelling.
Civil Procedure — Framing of Issues — Court's Duty — Order 15 Rules 3 and 5
The court has a primary obligation to frame issues from the pleadings and evidence, with assistance from counsel. The court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. The object is to bring down evidence, arguments and decision to a particular question so there is no doubt as to what the dispute is.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • I.G.P v Ubah (2015) 11 NWLR (pt 1471) p. 405
  • Eze v I.G.P (2017) 4 NWLR (pt 1554)
  • Magezi Raphael v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 977 of 2000)
  • Lutaaya v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 461 of 1989)
  • Dr Lagu Charles and 3 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 370 of 2020)
  • Kahwa Z. and Bikorwenda v. Uganda Transport Company Ltd [1978] HCB 318
  • Takoradi Flour Mills v Samira Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882
  • Nsubuga v Kavuma [1978] HCB 307

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ulrich and Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 310 of 2018) [2023] UGHCCD 97 (14 April 2023)
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.