|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2006 |
|
|
A constitutional reference premised on unresolved contractual disputes is premature; contractual issues must be decided first.
Constitutional Reference – Article 137(5) – premature reference where issues arise from unresolved written contract – contractual questions to be determined by civil court before constitutional challenge – locus and procedure for referring constitutional questions.
|
24 October 2006 |
|
Constitutional amendment rendered forestry-management challenge moot; petition was defective and struck out with costs.
Constitutional law – division of powers over forests and wildlife reserves – effect of Constitutional (Amendment) Act No.5 of 2005; justiciability of government policy and plan documents under article 137(3); pleading requirements under Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, 2005; costs against counsel for defective petition.
|
4 October 2006 |
| August 2006 |
|
|
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.
|
8 August 2006 |
| June 2006 |
|
|
The Electoral Commission may reject the Attorney General's advice; a signed nomination submitted on time validates an absent candidate's nomination.
Constitutional law – Electoral Commission independence (art.62) – Attorney General’s advice (art.119) not binding; nomination law (art.103(2)(a)) – physical presence not required; procedural validity of petitions – authorised filing and amendment.
|
2 June 2006 |
| January 2006 |
|
|
Military interference at the High Court and unlawful military trials of civilians violated liberty, fair trial and jurisdictional limits.
Constitutional law — Judicial independence and fair trial — Military presence and conduct inside High Court interfering with bail documentation and access to counsel — violation of Articles 23, 28 and 128. Criminal procedure — Concurrent prosecutions in High Court and General Court Martial from same facts — risk of double jeopardy and breach of Article 28(9). Military law — UPDF Act s.119(1)(g),(h) unlawfully extends military jurisdiction to civilians — inconsistent with Article 210. Jurisdiction — Terrorism triable only by High Court; DPP consent required (Anti-Terrorism Act ss.3,6); GCM lacked jurisdiction for charges brought.
|
31 January 2006 |
|
|
31 January 2006 |
|
A multi-judge panel cannot properly hear a formal application to disqualify one of its own members; that decision lies with the impugned judge.
Judicial disqualification – Procedure for raising bias objections – Whether a multi-judge coram may hear an application to disqualify one of its members – Decision to disqualify rests with the impugned judge – Objections should be made informally to the judge alone; Estoppel – consolidation of petitions and fee objections.
|
12 January 2006 |