[1998] UGCC 5

[1998] UGCC 5

The Constitutional Court held that the reference did not involve interpretation of the Constitution but rather enforcement of fundamental rights through habeas corpus. The relevant legal principle is that the justification for detention must be assessed at the time of the return to the writ, and subsequent valid proceedings (such as charging the applicants) cure any prior procedural defects. The court further held that a preliminary objection may be properly raised in constitutional proceedings and that the trial judge was not obliged to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court unless a genuine question of constitutional interpretation arose. The reference was therefore improperly...

Citation
[1998] UGCC 5
Parties
Applicant: Sheikh Abdul Karim Sentamu; Applicant: Mustapha Bahiga; Respondent: Inspector General of Police; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
25 November 1998
Case Number
Constitutional Reference 7 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Reference dismissed; matter returned to High Court for determination.
Judges
Manyindo, DCJ, Okello, JA, Berko, JA, Twinomujuni, JA, Kitumba, JA
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Interpretation of Constitution, Preliminary Objection, Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Habeas Corpus Interpretation of Constitution Preliminary Objection Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Abdul Karim Sentamu

Applicant

Mustapha Bahiga

Applicant

Inspector General of Police

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging of the applicants after the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was consistent with Article 23(9) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the reference to the Constitutional Court involved interpretation of the Constitution or enforcement of individual rights.
  3. 3 Whether a preliminary objection could be properly raised in constitutional proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the reference did not involve interpretation of the Constitution but rather enforcement of fundamental rights through habeas corpus. The relevant legal principle is that the justification for detention must be assessed at the time of the return to the writ, and subsequent valid proceedings (such as charging the applicants) cure any prior procedural defects. The court further held that a preliminary objection may be properly raised in constitutional proceedings and that the trial judge was not obliged to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court unless a genuine question of constitutional interpretation arose. The reference was therefore improperly...

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed; matter returned to High Court for determination.

Orders

  • The reference to the Constitutional Court is dismissed.
  • The matter is remitted to the learned trial Judge for determination of enforcement of rights.