The Constitutional Court of Uganda dismissed a challenge to polygamy-related laws, holding that the impugned provisions were constitutionally protected and not discriminatory.
Kizito v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 17 of 2021) [2024] UGCC 7 (23 February 2024)
Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number
Constitutional Petition 17 of 2021
Judge
Egonda-Ntende, JCC, Bamugemereire, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC, Monica K. Mugenyi, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC
The Constitutional Court of Uganda dismissed a petition challenging Section 4(7) of the Income Tax Act as discriminatory and inconsistent with the Constitution.
Bwengye and 13 v Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 200 (20 December 2023)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022
Judge
Allan Nshimye, J
The application was dismissed on two principal grounds. First, the motion failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 8(1)(d) of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, SI No.31 of 2019, as it did not itemize the grounds for the application in the motion itself, rendering it incompetent. Second, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to declare statutory provisions invalid for inconsistency with the Constitution; such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution. T…
Bwengye Deusdedit v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 19 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 199 (20 December 2023)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Cause 19 of 2022
Judge
Allan Nshimye, J
The application was dismissed on two principal grounds. First, the motion failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 8(1)(d) of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, SI No.31 of 2019, as it did not itemise the grounds in the motion itself, rendering it incompetent. Second, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to declare statutory provisions invalid for inconsistency with the Constitution; such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution. The orders sought by the Applic…
The African Court reopened pleadings in an application by Iddi s/o Amani, directing the parties to file evidence on his age and the trial court record.
The Court found that the applicant was informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of his apprehension, as evidenced by his own testimony before the District Court. The Court held that the applicant's identification at the scene was properly assessed by the domestic courts, with corroborative evidence from witnesses, and there was no indication of discrimination or unequal treatment. The evaluation of evidence by the domestic courts was found to be within their margin of appreciation, and no manifest error or miscarriage of justice was established. Regarding the right to defence, the Court…
The Court found that the Applicants had access to domestic courts and exhausted all available remedies, including appeals up to the Supreme Court. The duration and complexity of proceedings were justified by the number of claimants and legal issues involved, and no undue delay or procedural irregularity attributable to the Respondent State was established. The Applicants failed to provide specific evidence of lack of judicial independence or impartiality, and the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted. Allegations of unequal treatment and discrimination were unsupported by evidence, as…
The African Court held that Thomas Mgira’s fair-trial and equality claims failed, finding no manifest error in the domestic courts’ assessment of identification evidence.
The Constitutional Court found that Rule 17 of the Administration of Estates (Small Estates) (Special Provisions) (Probate and Administration) Rules does not contravene Articles 21(1), 28(1), or 44(c) of the Constitution. The Rule provides for the issuance of a citation, which requires the cited person to bring the Letters of Administration to court and allows them 21 days to file a statement in response. This process ensures that the administrator is given an opportunity to be heard before any revocation of the Letters of Administration, thereby upholding the right to a fair hearing and equa…
