[2004] UGSC 2

[2004] UGSC 2

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a constitutional petition challenging an Act of Parliament begins to run from the date the Act is published in the Gazette, unless the Act itself provides a different commencement date. The Court reasoned that, under Article 91(8) of the Constitution and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGSC 2
Parties
Appellant: Attorney General; Respondent: Dr. James Rwanyarare; Respondent: Haji Badru Kendo Wegulo; Respondent: Hon. Yusuf Nsambu-Nsubuga; Respondent: Hon. Ken Lukyamuzi; Respondent: James G. Musinguzi; Respondent: Major Rubaramira Ruranga; Respondent: Francis Gureme; Respondent: Karuhanga Chaapa; Respondent: Hussein Kyanjo; Respondent: Dr. John Jean Barya
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Constitutional Appeal 2 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation Period
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Petition declared competent. Costs of the appeal to abide the result of the petition. Certificate for two counsel denied; costs allowed for one counsel only.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Commencement of Legislation, Constitutional Petitions, Gazettement, Parliamentary Process
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Limitation Periods Commencement of Legislation Constitutional Petitions Gazettement Parliamentary Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Appellant

Dr. James Rwanyarare

Respondent

Haji Badru Kendo Wegulo

Respondent

Hon. Yusuf Nsambu-Nsubuga

Respondent

Hon. Ken Lukyamuzi

Respondent

James G. Musinguzi

Respondent

Major Rubaramira Ruranga

Respondent

Francis Gureme

Respondent

Karuhanga Chaapa

Respondent

Hussein Kyanjo

Respondent

Dr. John Jean Barya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation Period

  1. 1 Whether the thirty-day limitation period for filing a constitutional petition under Rule 4 of Legal Notice No.4 of 1996 begins from the date of presidential assent or from the date of gazettement of the Act.
  2. 2 Whether Constitutional Petition No.7 of 2002 was filed within the prescribed time and is therefore competent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a constitutional petition challenging an Act of Parliament begins to run from the date the Act is published in the Gazette, unless the Act itself provides a different commencement date. The Court reasoned that, under Article 91(8) of the Constitution and the Acts of Parliament Act (Cap 2), publication in the Gazette is a constitutional requirement for an Act to become operational and judicially noticed. The Political Parties and Organisations Act, 2002 was assented to on 2/6/2002 but was gazetted and commenced on 17/7/2002. The petition was filed on 31/7/2002, well within the thirty-day limitation period. The Court rejected the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Petition declared competent. Costs of the appeal to abide the result of the petition. Certificate for two counsel denied; costs allowed for one counsel only.

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed.
  • Petition in the Constitutional Court to proceed expeditiously.