Haruna v Attorney General & Another
Haruna v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition 18 of 2020) [2024] UGCC 17 (22 May 2024)
The court held that the issues raised in the petition regarding the constitutionality of Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 had already been conclusively determined by the Constitutional Court in Ferdsult Engineering Services & Mugisha Ferdinand v Attorney General & ABSA Bank Limited. The court found that Regulation 13 does not contravene or is not inconsistent with the cited constitutional provisions, including the right to property, equality before the law, fair hearing, and judicial independence. The requirement for a security deposit is designed to prevent frivolous litigation…
Source excerpt
- Mortgage Regulation
- Right To Property
- Fair Hearing
- Judicial Discretion
- Delegated Legislation