Share
Sarah Anena v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 0033 of 2021) [2025] UGCA 163 (15 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGCA 163
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kiryabwire, JCC, Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Gashirabake, JCC, Kihika, JA /JCC, Tibulya, JA/JCC
- Case number
- Constitutional Petition No. 0033 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kiryabwire, JCC, Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Gashirabake, JCC, Kihika, JA /JCC, Tibulya, JA/JCC
- Case number
- Constitutional Petition No. 0033 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution because the petitioner failed to comply with the court's directions regarding amendment, service, and filing of responses. The court found that the directions given to the parties had not been adhered to, which constituted a failure to prosecute the petition. As a result, the petition could not proceed and was dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
Court disposition
petition dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No orders as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sarah Anena
Applicant Counsel: Elizabeth YalediInstitute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda
Respondent Counsel: Martin KakuruMinister of Finance; Hon. Kasaijja Matia
Respondent Counsel: Bichachi OjamboRegistrar of Accountants; Derrick Nkajja
Respondent Counsel: Martin KakuruAmounts and remedies
- Amount in Controversy (ugx): UGX 18,078
03
Procedural history
Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the petition disclosed a cause of action under Article 137 of the Constitution.
- 02
Whether the 1st respondent acted ultra vires in restricting direct membership to accounting societies within East Africa.
- 03
Whether the petition was properly prosecuted in accordance with court directions.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent acted ultra vires by restricting direct membership of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda to only members of accounting societies from within the East Africa Region, which she contended was unconstitutional. She sought constitutional interpretation under Article 137.
- Respondent
- The 1st and 3rd respondents argued that the petition did not disclose a cause of action. The 2nd respondent contended that the petition did not raise any matters for constitutional interpretation under Article 137 and was wrongly joined as a party.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, 2005
A petition must be prosecuted in accordance with the directions of the court; failure to do so amounts to want of prosecution.
- 02
Article 137 of the Constitution of Uganda
Only matters that raise constitutional interpretation under Article 137 are properly before the Constitutional Court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution because the petitioner failed to comply with the court's directions regarding amendment, service, and filing of responses. The court found that the directions given to the parties had not been adhered to, which constituted a failure to prosecute the petition. As a result, the petition could not proceed and was dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the 2nd respondent was wrongly added as a party and that the Attorney General should have been joined instead.
- Directions for amendment and scheduling were given but not followed, demonstrating procedural non-compliance.
Court disposition
petition dismissed for want of prosecution
- The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No orders as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
Coram: Kiryabwire; Kibeedi; Gashirabake; Kihika & Tibulya, JJ. CC
Constitutional Petition No. 0033 of 2021
PETITIONER Sarah Anena ...................................
Versus
- 1. Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda - 2. Minister of Finance; Hon. Kasaijja Matia - 3. Registrar of Accountants; Derrick Nkajja ..................................
RULING OF COURT
- 1. The petitioner, Sarah Anena brought this petition under Article 137 (1), (3) (a) (b) and (4) of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules, 2005. It was alleged that the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent acted ultra vires in restricting direct membership of the institute to only members of accounting societies from within the East Africa Region. - 2. The petition is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. - 3. The $1^{st}$ and $3^{rd}$ respondents, contending that the petition does not disclose a cause of action opposed it. - 4. The $2<sup>nd</sup>$ respondent also opposed the petition and pleaded that it does not raise any matters for constitutional interpretation in terms of Article 137 of the Constitution.
Representation.
5. The petitioner was represented by Ms. Elizabeth Yaledi. The second respondent was represented by Mr. Bichachi Ojambo (State Attorney), while the $1^{st}$ and $3^{rd}$ respondents were represented by Mr. Martin Kakuru.
$18078$
Considerations.
d
- 6. When the petition came up for hearing on 18th November 202\$, the court noted that the 2nd respondent was wrongly added as a party to the petition. It was also noted that the Attorney General had not been added as a party to the petition. The court therefore struck out the 2nd respondent and granted leave to the petitioner to amend the petition by adding the Attorney General p <sup>a</sup> party. - 7. The court also directed the petitioner to file and serve the petition by 25th November 2024. The respondents were given up to 9th December 2024 to file and serve their responses to the petition. A rejoinder if any, was to be filed by 13th December 2024. Directions were given to the Court . Registrar to conduct a scheduling conference. The court reserved its - 8. The directions to the parties have to date not been adhered to. This amounts to failure to prosecute the petition. - 9. The petition therefore stands dismissed for want of prosecution, with no orders as to costs. N
v,
\Y..
Dated at Kampala this ....................................
Geoffrey Kiryabwire
Justice of the Constitutional Court.
Mamincilee 2.
Muzamiru M. Kibeedi
Justice of the Constitutional Court.
$mV^2$
Christopher Gashirabake
Justice of the Constitutional Court.
Oscar John Kihika.
Justice of the Constitutional Court.
$\overbrace{\hspace{1cm}}^{\text{max}}$
Margaret Tibulya Justice of the Constitutional Court.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.