[1997] UGCC 1

[1997] UGCC 1

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters of constitutional interpretation under Article 137. Petitions for enforcement of rights under Article 50 must be brought before a competent court and only reach the Constitutional Court by way of reference. The petition was found to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] UGCC 1
Parties
Applicant: Dr. James Rwanyarare; Applicant: Oweyegha Afunaduula; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
petition struck out as incompetent and time barred
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court, Limitation Periods, Representative Actions, Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court Limitation Periods Representative Actions Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. James Rwanyarare

Applicant

Oweyegha Afunaduula

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

  1. 1 Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitions brought directly under Article 50 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the petition is time barred under Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996.
  3. 3 Whether the Constitutional Court can declare provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters of constitutional interpretation under Article 137. Petitions for enforcement of rights under Article 50 must be brought before a competent court and only reach the Constitutional Court by way of reference. The petition was found to be time barred under the mandatory 30-day limitation period set by Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996. The Court further held that it has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of Presidential or Parliamentary elections, as these are reserved for the Supreme Court and High Court, respectively, with strict time limits. The attempt to bring a representative action without proper...

Court Disposition

petition struck out as incompetent and time barred

Orders

  • Petition is struck out with costs to the respondent.
  • Costs to be borne jointly and severally by the first and second petitioners.