[2024] UGCC 23

# ⁵ THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

[Coram: Kiryabwire, Mulyagonja, Gashirobake, Luswata & Kihika, JJCCJ

### CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION No.04 OF 2020

BETWEEN

#### I. BUSINGYB PROSPBR 10

2. TUSHEMEREIRWE GRACE.... .. PBTITIONBRS

AND

### 1. THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION

2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA. RESPONDENTS

### JUDGMENT BY CHRISTOPHER GASHIRABAKE. JCC

### Introduction

The petitioners brought this action seeking;

a) Declarations that;

i. The introduction, passage and appropriation of a supplementary budget of Shs. I0 Billion to the Parliamentary Commission (1" Respondent) under Supplementary Expenditure No.2 Addendum l&2 for the FY 2019/2020 by Parliament on its own motion was illegal, inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles and the spirit of the Constitution.

ii. The introduction of the supplementary allocation in issue on the Jloor of parliament without prior deliberation by the Budget Committee was illegal and in violation of Parliament's own Rules of procedure.

iii. The subsequent payment by the I't Respondent of Shs. 20 Million to individual Members of Parliament out of the said funds was illegal, inconsistent with and in contravention of the Constitution and National Leadership Code as enshrined in the Constitution.

llPage

- ⁵ iv. Severing the parliament's or any resolution appropriating the supplementary budget of Shs I0 billion to the I't respondent for disbursement to individual Members of Parliament from the rest of the supplementary budget for Covid-(9 as passed by Parliament on 7/4/2020 and declaring such resolution null and void for contravening the constitution. - b) Orders that; - i. The Parliamentary Commission to recover, account for and return the funds wrongfully appropriated and expended on Members of Parliament to the Consolidated Fund not later than the end of the FY 2019/2020, being the financial year of the said funds, on 30/06/2020 - ii. Costs of the petition. - iii. Any other order deemed fit by the court.

### Brief Background

On the 7th of April, 2020, Parliament passed a resolution appropriating Shs. ¹⁰ billion to the Parliamentary Commission from the supplementary budget estimates for the COVID-19 pandemic for distribution to individual Members of Parliament (MPs). This resolution was introduced and passed by Parliament on its motion on the floor without the Executive's prior initiation and requisition of the funds. This allegedly contravenes the Constitutional mandate of the Parliament. There was no prior deliberation and adoption of the resolution by the Budget Committee of Parliament. 20 25

During the consideration and approval of supplementary Expenditure Schedule No.2 Addendum I &. 2 for FY 201912020 to cater for the Government interventions in combating the COVID -19 pandemic, it was the contention of the petitioners that the I't respondent subsequently disbursed the appropriated funds to the individual bank accounts of Members of Parliament with each MP receiving Shs.20 million/:. The

2lPage

⁵ specific grounds setting out the concern in the petition are stated in paragraphs ⁷,10 ,l | , 12, I 8, and 1 9 of the petition where it was stated that;

> 7. The petitioners jointly and severally, together with many other concerned Ugandans who are not named in the petition, are aggrieved by the decision by Members of Parliament of Ugando sitting on the 7th day of April 2020 in the exercise of Parliament's constitutional mandate to approve and appropriate budgets to consider the Supplementary Expenditure Schedule No.2, Addendum l&2 for FY 2019/2020 to:

- a) In disregard of the essentiali\t o-f medical services in the matter, to reduce the Budget allocated to the I'lealth Sector to fight the COVIDl9 pandemic from 104 Billion to Shs. I0 Billion, which were neither ^a part ofthe Government's proposals or recommendations nor mentioned in the Budget Committee's deliberations and Report. - b) Without a bill or motion by Government, to introduce and qllocate unto lhemselves via the Parltamentary Commission (l't Respondent) from the floor of parliament Shs. l0 Billion, whichwere neither a part of the Government's proposal or recommendations nor mentioned in the Budget Committee's deliberations and Report; - c) In disregard of the provisions of the National Leadership Code, to selfallocate and divide omong themselves the Shs. 10 Billion/: thereby illegally appropriated with each Member of Parliamenl bagging Shs. 20 Million of public funds to his or her personal account without specified guide lines as to its use and accountability,' - d) In disregard of legitimate public concerns on the issue, the I't respondent has already paid the 2)million/-to individual Member's personal accounts even before essential services such as health were catered for, which has discredited good governance and demoralized those at the frontline of the pandemic.

3!Page

- ⁵ 10. The requisite Supplementary Appropriation Bill/Act for the supplementary budget estimate as approved by Parliament has not yet been enacted as per Article 156(2) and (3) and Section 25(l) of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015. However,' - a) Parliament has passed the necessary resolution appropriating the funds as per the Budget Committee Report dated April 2020, a copy of which is in Annexure D to the I't Petitioner's ffidavit in support and record of Parliament proceedings (llansard) of 7/4/2020 in Annexure E to the I't Petitioner's ffidavit in support,' - b) This resolution has immediate force o/'law and will eventuate and be formalized in a Bill / Act of Parliament called the Supplementary Appropriation Bill/ Actfor the FY 2019/2020 AT A LATER STAGE; - c) The funds have been paid to the individual Members of Parliament by the I't respondent,' - d) Although the requisite Bill/ Act has not yet been passed into law, the decisions of Parliament in the matter are in force and have been fficted. The violation of the Constitution has therefore already occurred in the deliberations, resolutions, and actions of Parlioment, giving rise to this petition.

^Il. The petitioners aver and contend that the introduction, passage, and approval of the Parliamentary resolution appropriating the supplementary budget of Shs. l0 billion/: to the Parliamentary Commission (l't Respondent) for distributing to individual Members of Parliament, as coptured in the Parliamentary proceedings on Ttth April, 2020, exceeded Parliament's constitutional mandate in the matter, it is tainted with abuse of ffice and personal interest, it is also a breqch of the rules o/' accountability for public funds and it is inconsistent with and in contravention of the following provisions of the Constitution,'

- ⁵ a) Article 93(a) (ii) and (b) which restricts the power of Parliament to impose a charge on public funds on its own motion; - b) Article 156(2)(a) read together with Section 25 of the Public Finance Management Act, 201 5 on the modality and criteria for Supplementary budgets; - c) Article 233(2) (b) read together with the leadership Code Act Cap ¹⁶⁸ prohibiting conduct likely to compromise the honesty, impartially and integrity of public fficers, or likely to lead to corruption in public ffice, or detrimental to the public good, welfare, and good governance,' - d) Article 8A read together with National Objective & Directive Principle of Stote Policy No. XWI on accountability; - e) Article 79(1) on the function of Parliament which includes promoting good governance; - fl The rules of natural justice that the members of Parliament cannot be judges in their own cause and self-allocate, as enshrined and inherited in the Constitution; - g) The checks and balances that are embodied, inherent in, and part of the basic structure of the Constitution. - h) Article 8A read together with National Objective & Directive Principle of State Policy No. II plus Article 79(3) on demouatic governance within and outside Parliament;

12. In addition to the aforesaid, the impugned resolution violated the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure promulgated under Article 9a(l) of the Constitution;

- a) The motion introducing the supplementary budget of Shs. l0 billionwas made on the floor of parliament without passing through the Budget Committee Contrary to Rules 133, 147(3), 17l, 174, and 176 of the Rules of Procedure 2006; - b) The Budget Committee did not sit to consider such motion;

5lPage

⁵ c) The Speaker did not allow debate on the item in the Committee stage but simply put the question to the Members.

> 13. It is therefore, the honest and humble view of the Petitioners that the introduction and passage of the parliamentary resolution appropriating the supplementary budget oJ'Shs. 10 Billion to the Parliamentary Commission (l't Respondent under Supplementary Schedule No.2, Addendum l&2 for FY 2019/2020 and the subsequent payment by the l't respondent of Shs 20 million to each member of Parliament's individual bank account out of the appropriated money was motivated by personal interest wos illegal, it exceeded ^Parliament's const i tut ional mandate and contravened t he Cons t itution.

18. Due to the aforesaid considerations, it is the humble and advised view of the Petitioners that miscellaneous Cause No. 78 of 202 does not canvass the salient legal and constitutionql issues in the matter, which necessitate constitutional interpretation and that the right court clothed with jurisdiction to determination such issues in a wholesome manner is the constitutional courl.

The I't respondent opposed the petition and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the petition is an abuse of court process, and raises no matter or question for constitutional interpretation. Secondly, the petition offends the Civil Procedure Rules to the extent that it is presented by fictitious/undisclosed persons with no disclosed cause of action or authority to file the petition. The l't respondent contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the prayers sought.

In response to the petition, the 2"d respondent denied all the averrnents but conceded to paragraph 7(b), 11 and 13 stating that the passage and approval of the Parliamentary resolution appropriating the supplementary budget of Shs. l0 Billion to the Parliamentary Commission for distribution to individual Members of Parliament as captured in the Parliamentary proceedings on 7th April 2020

6lPage

- ⁵ contravened and is inconsistent with Articles 8A, 79(l), (3),93(b), 156 (2)(a) & 233(2)(b) and National Objectives & Directive Principles of State Policy No. II & XXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and section 25 of the Public Finance Management Act 2015. - The 2nd respondent then prayed that this court makes declarations that the actions of the Committee of Parliament and Parliament as a whole of reviewing and appropriating to itself Shs. 10 Billion was inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 93 (b), I 55, and 156 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. That the action of the Committee of Parliament & Parliament as a whole to redraw the budget, by shuffling funds between votes without reference to the Executive is inconsistent 10 - with and in contravention of Article 93(b) and 155(1) of the Constitution of Uganda. 15

### Legal Representation

parties filed written submissions.

When the petition came up for hearing, Mr. James Byamukama represented the petitioners. The l't respondent was represented jointly, by Mr. Solomon Kirunda, Ms. Sitanah Cheroitich, and Simon Waiswa. The 2nd respondent was represented by Mr. Hilary Nathan Ebila, State Attorney, in the Attorney General's chambers. Both

#### Analysis

#### Issues

During the joint scheduling the parties agreed on the following issues,

- 1. Whether the preliminary Objections are tenable? - 2. Whether the parliamentary Resolulion dated 7/4/2020 appropriating Shs. l0 billion to the L't respondent (Parliamentary Commission) Under Supplementary Budget Expenditure Schedule No. 2 Addendum I &2 for the FY 2019/2020 for the Government intervention in combating the

TlPage

⁵ COVID-19 pondemic was inconsistent with and in contravention of provisions of the Constitution.

- 3. Whether the I't respondent's disbursement of the said funds to individual Members of Parliament was inconsistent with and/or in contravention of provisions of the Constitution. - 4. What are the available remedies to the parties?

#### Issue onel

## Submissions on preliminary obiections.

In response to the petition, the I't respondent indicated in paragraph 3 of its answer to the petition that it shall raise four points of law. However, the 1't Respondent abandoned two errect that;

"i,"^'Tr,::::':,:"^;:,:::::",';:,:,:,:::r::r:,:,"the (ii) This petition is barred by res-judicata.

## l. Jurisdiction of this Court.

Counsel for the I't respondent submitted that Order 29 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is applicable in this Court by virtue of Rule 23 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and Reference) Rules, SI 9l Of 2005. Counsel cited Attorney General V. Major General David Tinyefuza, Supreme Court, Constitutional Appeal No I of 1997, where Tsekoko JSC held that where a preliminary objection is raised at the beginning of the trial, it is prudent to give reasons for or against the 20

objection before the trial proceeds. 25

> It was submitted for the 1't respondent that the jurisdiction of this court is provided for under Article of 137 of the Constitution. This was expounded on by the Supreme Court in Ismail Serugo v. Kampala city council, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 1998, in which the Supreme Court (Kanyeihamba, JSC) reviewed its decision in

Attorney General V Major General David Tinyefuza, (supra). 30

- ⁵ Furthermore, counsel submitted with certainty that the issue ofjurisdiction and cause of action in constitutional matters is intertwined in that a determination of the issue of jurisdiction is another way of a determination that the Court has no business to continue to handle the matter. This is because this Court's jurisdiction is exclusively interpretative in nature and nothing else. - Counsel considered it important for this Court to determine whether a petition like the one before this court raises questions of constitutional interpretation. To support his submissions counsel defined the word interpretation according to Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, on page 954, to mean;(a) The art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning of a statute, will, contract, or other written document. And 91 fne discovery and representation of the true meaning of any signs used to convey ideas. 10 15

Counsel cited Foundation for Human Rights Initiative V Attorney General, Constitutional Petition no. 53 of 20ll where Justice Madrama JA, (as he then was) defined the word interpretation under Article 137(l) to mean "controversy" or imports the meaning of an "arguable issue" which discloses a genuine dispute about the interpretation of the Constitution to resolve the controversy. He concluded that the Constitutional Court ought to only determine petitions or references where there is a controversy or controversies about the meaning of a provision of the Constitution.

lt was submitted for the I't respondent that paragraph 7 of the petition coupled with the prayers sought in paragraph l9 of the petition clearly indicate that the petitioners are not seeking interpretation of the Constitution or any Act of Parliament. Precisely that, the petitioners have not stated any controversy that requires this Court to expound on the meaning of Articles 93,156 and 233 of the constitution. 25

9!Page

⁵ It was submitted by counsel for the respondent that the Constitutional Court has the power to apply the Constitutional provisions under Articles 137(3) &. (4) of the Constitution, but only if the petition involves interpretation of the Constitution. It is not enough to merely allege the violation of the Constitution. (See Uganda network on Toxic Free Malaria Control Limited v Attorney General, Constitutional Petition Number 14 of 2009 and Alenyo George William v The Chief Registrar of Courts of Judicature& 2 Ors, Constitutional Petition. No.32 of 2014. 1,0

Counsel also relied on the Kenyan case of Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lilian's" vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1980, where the Kenyan Court of Appeal held that Jurisdiction is everything, where the court has no jurisdiction there is no basis to continue with the proceedings.

In response Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Article 137, of the Constitution this court has jurisdiction in matters relating to the interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to enforcement, which is vested in the High Court under Article 50 of the Constitution. Counsel cited Ismail Serugo Vs Kampala City

## Council & Attorney General (supra), where it was held that: 20

" ln my view for the constitutional court to have jurisdiction the petition must show, on the face of it, that interpretation of a provision of the Constitution is required. It is not enough to allege merely that a Constitutional provision hos been violqted. "

- lt was argued for the petitioner that, in the course of handling Article 137 matters, the Constitutional Court may deal with Article 50 matters. This is envisaged by Article 137(4) on orders for redress or referring a matter to the High Court for appropriate redress. However, counsel noted that unless the action requires constitutional interpretation, the court of first instance is the High Court under 25 - Article 50. 30

- ⁵ It was submitted for the petitioner that the 2nd Respondent in paragraph I of his Answer to the Petition, acknowledges that the impugned parliamentary resolution contravened and is inconsistent with Articles of the Constitution. Counsel submitted that these issues go beyond mere enforcement of the Constitution and require constitutional interpretation. - 2. Abuse of court process. 10

Counsel for the 1't respondent submitted that consequent to the impugned Act of Parliament appropriating IJgx 20 million to each MP to use the same in the mitigation of the spread of COVID-19, Hon. Gerald Karuhanga filed before the High Court, Miscellaneous Cause No. 78 of 2020 seeking prerogative orders to quash the decision of the Parliament of Uganda in allocating Ugx 20m to individual MPs.

The Applicant filed an application for temporary injunction vide Misc. Application No. 179 of 2020 which resulted into an order of court in which the Parliamentary Commission recovered the disbursed Ugx 10b from MPs. The said Order was given on the 5th of May 2020. However, the applicant rushed to this Court to seek similar orders, including the order of accountability for the Ugx. 10 billion, and also to stall the final determination of Miscellaneous Cause No. 78 of 2020. Counsel further submitted that the signing ofthe consent Order in Misc. Application No. 179 of 2020 had in principle rendered the main application academic

It was submitted for the I't respondent that the filing of the instant petition was in bad faith, an abuse of court process and only intended to flood the Court with matters which were already before the High Court.

## 3. Res-judicata

11 lPage

⁵ Counsel for the 1't respondent further submitted that this matter is res-judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. Counsel relied on General Industries (U) Limited vs. Non-performing Assets Recovery Trust and 3 others, Civil Appeal No. 5l of 2007, where Court of Appeal stated that;

> " Res-judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The former focused on baring a suit .from being brought again, and again, on a legal case of action that has already been finally decided between the parties or sometimes those privy to or in privity. with a party; while the latter bars the re-litigation o/'factual issues lhat have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury os port of an earlier claim. It presupposes that:

- (i) There are two opposing parties; - (ii) There is a de.finite issue between the them,' - (iii) T'here is q tribunal competent to decide the same; and - (iv) l4tithin the competence, the tribunal has done Jo.... " - 20 25 Counsel for the 1't respondent submitted that the legal issues stated by the petitioners in paragraphs I I (a) to (h) and l2(a) to (c) of the Petition were resolved by the Supreme Court in Parliamentary Commission vs. Mwesigye Wilson, Constitutional Appeal No. 08 of 2016. In this particular petition, the petitioners alleged that the 1't respondent appropriated funds to itself without the approval of the Executive or compliance with articles 93, 156, and 233 of the Constitution among others. The Supreme Court found that section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act Cap 259 was unconstitutional as it contravened Articles 93, 152 to 156 of the Constitution. The impugned section allowed Parliament to amend the schedule to the Act to appropriate to itself funds without recourse to Article 93 of the Constitution. In this petition, the petitioners are bringing up the same question to this court for determination. 30

⁵ This same matter having been conclusively determined in the Mwesigye Wilson case; there is no need for this court to determine the same question. The same is caught up by the res-judicata principle based on "claim preclusion" as stated in the above case.

## Resolution by court

The respondent's counsel submitted that the issue ofjurisdiction and cause of action in constitutional matters are intertwined, which is not the case. He seems to suggest that the cause of action is the same as jurisdiction. This court has made this position clear in Ntare Adens Rutaro vs. Joel Ssenyonyi and 3 Others, Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2019, where the court addressed the issue of cause of action and jurisdiction and stated that; 10 15

> "The two concepts, cause of action and jurisdiction, are however dffirent and they were distinguished by the Supreme Court in its groundbreaking decisions, includingAttorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza, Constitutional Appeal No. 0I of 1997. In that case, Wambuzi, CJ, sel out the basisfor the distinction between the two drawnfrom Mulla on the Code of Civit Procedure, Volume l, l4th Edition page 106, where it is stated that;

> 'A cause of action' meons every fact, which if traversed, would be necessory for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to ^a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle offacts that taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant, it must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such act no cause of action can possibly occrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.'

13 lPage

⁵ with regard to the term 'jurisdiction' Wambuzi CJ once again referred to Mulla on Civil Procedure at page 225 where it stated that:

> 'by jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has decided matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal wayfor its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter, or commission under which the court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by like meons. If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is unlimited. "'

The law relevant to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is laid down under Article 137 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995. It provides in part

that; 15

"(l) Any question as to the interpretotion of this Constitution shall be determined by the Court of Appeal sitting as the constitutional court.

(2) When sitting as a constitutional court, the Court of Appeal shall consist of a bench of five members of that court.

(3) A person who crlleges thal

(a) an Act of Parliament or ony other law or anything in or done under the authority of any law; or

(b) any act or omission by any person or authority,

is inconsistenl with or in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may petition the constitutional court for a declqration to that ffict, and redress where appropriate.

(4) Where upon determinotion oJ'the petition under clause (3) of this article the constitutional courl considers that there is a needfor redress in addition to the declaration sought, the constitutional court may-

(a) grant an order ofredress; or

1,0

(b) refer the matter to the High Court to investigate and determine the appropriate redress.

(5) Where any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution arises in any proceedings in a court of law other than a field courtmartial, the court-

(a) may, if it is of the opinion that the question involves a substantial question of law; and

(b) shall, ,f ony party to the proceedings requests it to do so, refer the question to the constitutional court for decision in accordance with clause (l) of this article."

15 20 According to the provision above, the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in clause I of Article 137 is to interpret the Constitution either by way of petition under clause 3, or by way of reference to this Court by another Court under clause 5. This was fortified by the Supreme Court in Attorney General vs. Major General David Tinyefuza, Constitutional Appeal, No. I of 1997, where Justice Wambuzi held that:

> "in myview, jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is limited in Article 137(1) of the Constitution to interpretation of the Constitution. Put in a dffirent way, no other jurisdiction apart from interpretation of the Constitution is given. In these circumstances. I would hold that unless the question before the Constitutional Court depends for its determination on the interpretation or construction of a provision of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction. "

In Uganda Journalists Safety Committee & Anor vs. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 6/97, this court held that;

"The Constitutional Court is thus a new Court created by Article 137 of the Constitution for the sole purpose for the interpretation of the Constitution either following a reference under Legal Notice 3 of by

15 lPage

⁵ means of a Petition under I.egal Notice No. 4 of 1996. T'he jurisdiction of the Court to entertqin both malters i.e. 'Reference' and 'Petition' are derivedfrom Article 137 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court is therefore not a proper forumfor a person seeking redress under Article 50 of the Constitution. This is clear from the provision of the Article itself... The applicationfor redress under Article 50 ought to have been brought by way an ordinary Civil action in a competent Court of Judicature. "

From the above interpretation, it is clear that the assertions of the respondent counsel that Jurisdiction and cause of action are intertwined are not true, the two concepts are very different. Jurisdiction is the authority or power of the Court to adjudicate cases and make necessary orders. Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution or legislation. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court has no original jurisdiction merely to enforce rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution in isolation from interpreting the Constitution. (see, Ismail Serugo vs. Kampala City Council and Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 198) 15 20

The petitioner alleged in paragraphs 7 (c), (d), 8(a) to (0, 11, and 14 of the petition that the I't respondent wrongly appropriated a sum of Shs. 10,000,000,000 (Uganda shillings Ten Billion Only) to itself and distributed the same to the members of Parliament each getting Shs. 20,000,000 (Uganda Shillings twenty million only). These allegations do not call for interpretation of the Constitution. The alleged contravened provisions of the Constitution are also very clear, there is no controversy as to their meaning vis-a vis the actions complained of in the petition. The petition merely raised alleged procedural irregularity by alleging the conditions under Article 93 were not complied with.

- 5 The 2nd respondent in paragraph 8 of its answer to the Petition admitted to the Petitioners claims, however contravention per say does not warranty the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. With due respect, jurisdiction is not conferred upon court by admission. It is a creature of the law. In this case the provisions of Article 137 of the Constitution, creates the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. - 10 15 Where there is violation, it is a matter of inference from the facts and does not require interpretation. This can be done by u competent court under Article 50 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this matter would have been best disposed of under Article 50 of the Constitution before a competent Court. This court has no jurisdiction to handle this petition since it is evident that it merely seeks to rectifu contraventions of the Constitution.

The respondent raised other two preliminary points of law with regard to res judicata and abuse of court process. However, because of Order 6 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules, there is no need to dispose of them. This provision states that:

> "lf, in the opinion of the court, the decision of the point of law substantially disposes of the whole suit, or any distinct cause of action, the ground of defence, setoff, counterclaim, or reply therein, the court may thereupon dismiss the suit or make such other order in the suit as may be just. "

25 Exercising the powers of this court, I would dismiss this petition. This court is seized with power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process. Since jurisdiction is everything, without jurisdiction this court has no power to entertain any matter before it. If the petitioner is still interested in the petition, they may file their petition in the competent court.

- In conclusion, I would dismiss the petition. Since the petition was brought in Public $\mathsf{S}$ interest, I would in the circumstances order each party to bear their own costs in this cause. - Dated, signed and delivered at Kampala this .................................... $10$

$m\sqrt{2}$ $\mathcal{S}^k$

**Christopher Gashirabake**

**Justice of the Constitutional Court**

# IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

coram: Kiryabwire, Mulgagonja, Gashirqbake, Luswata, Kihika", JJCC

# CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. OOO4 OF 2O2O

### BETWEEN

### 1. BUSINGYE PROSPER

2. TUSHEMEREIRWE GRACE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: pETITIONERS

### AND

## 1. THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION

# 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : RESPONDENTS

## JUDGMENT OF IRENE MULYAGONJA, JCC

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother Gashirabake, JCC. I agree with his decision for the reasons given and with the order that each party shall bear its own costs.

Dated '-74 at Kampala this ..e2.....day of November, 2024

(

Irene Muly a Justice of the Constitutional Court

# IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT I(AMPALA

[Coram: Kiryabutire, Mulyagonja, Gashirabake, Lusuata & Kihika, JJCC]

# CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO 04 OF 2O2O

BETWEEN

- 1. BUSINGYE PROSPER - 2. TUSHEMEREIRWE GRACE...................... PETITIONERS

AND

- 1. THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION - 2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA... RESPONDENTS

# JUDGMENT OF EVA K. LUSWATA. JCC

I have had the opportunity to read in draft the judgment of my learned brother Hon. Justice Christopher Gashirabake, JCC.

I agree with him and have nothing useful to add.

^-lD Dated, signed and delivered. at Kampala this ..22'. day of . A4. S?./... 2024

a

EVA WATA JUSTTCE OF APPEAL/ CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1.

## IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

[Coram: Kiryabwire, Mulyagonja, Gashirabake, Luswata & Kihika, $JJCC$

**CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO 04 OF 2020**

**BETWEEN**

### 1. BUSINGYE PROSPER

$\mathsf{S}$

2. TUSHEMEREIRWE GRACE....................................

AND

#### 1. THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION

2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA...... RESPONDENTS 15

### JUDGMENT BY OSCAR JOHN KIHIKA, JCC

I have had the opportunity of reading in draft, the judgment of my brother Christopher Gashirabake, JCC. I agree that the petition ought to be dismissed on account of the fact that it does not raise 20 any question for interpretation.

In agreement with my learned brother, I would dismiss the petition with no order as to costs

Dated, signed and delivered at Kampala this $.^{\sim}$ day $.^{\sim}$ day $.^{\sim}$ of 2024. $25$

OSCAR JOHN KIHIKA

### JUSTICE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

$1$ | Page

## IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 04 OF 2O2O

1. BUSINGYE PROSPER 2. TUSHEMEREIRWE GRACE ========================== PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL = = = = = ======== = ==RESPON DENTS

CORAM: Hon. Mr. Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire,lA/lCC

Hon. Lady. Justice lrene Mulyagonja, JA/lCC

Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Gashirabake, lA.llCC

Hon. Lady. Justice Eva Luswata, JA/JCC

Hon. Mr. Justice Oscar Kihika, lA/lCC

## JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE GEOFFREY KIRYABWIRE, JAIJCC

I have had the opportunity of reading the lead Judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Gashirabake, JAIJCC in draft.

I agree with it and I have nothing more useful to add.

That being the case we now make the following final Orders;

### Final Orders

1. The petition is hereby dismissed.

2. Each party to bear their own costs in this cause.

$\bullet$

Dated at Kampala this $22$ day of $4$ day of $22$ day $22$ .

$\overrightarrow{H}$

HON. MR. JUSTICE GEOFFREY KIRYABWIRE JUSTICE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .