Related documents
Loading PDF...
This document is 4.6 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
30 September 2005 this version
Commenced
26 September 2005
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 14
Judgment
12|
Civil Procedure |
|
Parliament’s retroactive extension of its and local councils’ terms violated people’s sovereignty; key amendment provisions struck down.
Constitutional law – amendment of the Constitution – basic‑structure doctrine – limits on Parliament’s amending power; public participation – requirement and scope in constitutional amendments; procedural compliance – Speaker’s certificate, 14‑day separation and referendum under Chapter 18; retrospective/retroactive laws; security forces in Parliament – limits and accountability; severance of constitutional provisions.
|
|
Whether Article 80(4)’s 90‑day resignation requirement applied to Ministers and UPDF representatives in the 2006 elections.
Constitutional law — Article 80(4) requirement to resign before nomination — meaning of "person employed in any government department" — distinction between political appointees and public servants — interplay with Article 78 army representation — temporal effect of constitutional amendments and operational electoral law.
|
|
Statutory provisions permitting marriage of 16–17-year-olds are unconstitutional; only persons aged eighteen or older may marry.
Constitutional law – Family law – Minimum marriage age – Article 31(1) – Pre-1995 statutes (CMRA, MDMA, HMDA) permitting marriage of 16–17-year-olds inconsistent with Constitution; Article 274 (existing law) does not bar constitutional challenge; statutory provisions to be read as permitting marriage only for persons aged 18 or above.
|
|
The IGG is the constitutional "appropriate tribunal" to enforce the Leadership Code and may remove MPs under Article 83(1)(e).
Constitutional law – Leadership Code enforcement – Article 83(1)(e) and Article 234 – IGG as "appropriate tribunal"; separation of investigative and adjudicative functions – natural justice safeguards and appeal rights; Speaker and Electoral Commission compliance with IGG orders; judicial review limits under Leadership Code Act (Section 34(2)(b)) treated as academic in this petition.
|
|
Kampala Capital City Authority Act 2010 led to the lawful frustration of employment contracts without fault of either party.
Employment Law – Frustration of contract – Change in law and its impact on existing employment contracts – Doctrine of frustration applied to governmental restructure.
|
|
Petitioner declared elected where respondent was not a registered voter, name change/statutory declaration inadequate, and cancelled polling results materially affected outcome.
Electoral law – candidate qualification – registered voter requirement and name change formalities; Parliamentary Elections Act s.4 and s.53; Registration of Persons Act compliance for change of name; admissibility of statutory declarations as proof of academic qualification (PEA s.4(14)); irregular cancellation of polling station results and substantial effect on result.
|
|
A resignation requirement for certain government employees before nominations breached free and fair elections and equality, but not the right to participate.
Constitutional law – interpretation and harmonisation of constitutional provisions; Article 80(4) (resignation requirement) – compatibility with Article 1(4) (free and fair elections) and Article 21(1) (equality/non‑discrimination); Article 38(1) (participation) – not breached; interpretation of "person employed in any government department or agency"; effect of late enactment on electoral fairness.
|
|
Challenge to amendment limiting MPs' recall to the Movement system dismissed; limitation found constitutional and not discriminatory.
Constitutional law – Constitutional amendment – Power of Parliament to amend Constitution – Article 84(7) (recall of MPs) introduced by 2005 amendment – Movement vs Multi-Party systems; Equality and non‑discrimination – limitation justified and not unfairly discriminatory; Res judicata – prior cases did not decide Article 84(7) constitutionality.
|
|
Parliament’s failure to ascertain requisite quorum when passing the Act rendered the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act null and void.
Constitutional jurisdiction – Article 137 – petition discloses questions for interpretation; Parliamentary procedure – quorum – Article 88/89 and Rule 23 (Parliament Rules 2012) – duty to ascertain quorum and record numbers; Legislative validity – failure to meet quorum invalidates enactment; Separation/severability – inseparable provisions lead to invalidation of whole Act; Remedies – declaration of invalidity and costs.
|