Constitutional Court of Uganda - 1999

3 judgments
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
July 1999

 

15 July 1999
March 1999
Disciplinary committee has concurrent jurisdiction and statutory disciplinary procedure does not breach fair‑hearing or appeal provisions.
* Advocates Act – disciplinary jurisdiction – Sections 18, 19, 73(1)–(2), 78(2) – concurrent jurisdiction with criminal courts. * Constitutional law – fair hearing (Art. 28) – procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings (notice, access to documents, right to representation). * Evidence – exclusion of Evidence Act from disciplinary proceedings does not automatically violate fair hearing. * Appellate jurisdiction – limitation of appeal to the High Court is statutory and not unconstitutional.
30 March 1999
Disciplinary tribunal may concurrently hear professional offences without violating constitutional fair‑hearing guarantees.
* Advocates Act – disciplinary offences (sui generis) – concurrent jurisdiction of Disciplinary Committee and ordinary courts. * Constitutional law – right to fair hearing (Art. 28) – notice, access to documents, representation, opportunity to examine witnesses must be preserved. * Natural justice – prima facie inquiry by disciplinary tribunal does not inevitably create bias. * Evidence Act – formal exclusion from disciplinary proceedings permissible if substantial fairness maintained. * Appellate jurisdiction – appeals limited by statute (High Court) not unconstitutional.
30 March 1999