Uganda Case Law

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015) [2025] UGCC 5 (27 June 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JCC, Obura, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC, Kazibwe, JCC, Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC

The court held that Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it serves the legitimate objective of protecting the right to a fair hearing, which is non-derogable. The sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation under Article 43(1), balancing the right to freedom of expression and access to information against the need for fair and impartial judicial proceedings. However, Rule 73 of the Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits Parliament from discussing…

Source excerpt

• Sub Judice Rule
• Freedom Of Expression
• Access To Information
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights

Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Deputy Speaker of Parliament and Another (Misc Cause 33 of 2023)

Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Deputy Speaker of Parliament and Another (Misc Cause 33 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 416 (31 May 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Misc Cause 33 of 2023

Judge

Lubega, J

The High Court at Mbale dismissed a judicial review application for lack of standing, holding that the applicant had not shown a direct or sufficient interest in the parliamentary referral dispute.

• Judicial Review
• Locus Standi
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Sufficient Interest
• Judicial-review
• Locus-standi

Mabirizi v Deputy Speaker of Parliament & Another

Mabirizi v Deputy Speaker of Parliament & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 33 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 385 (31 May 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 33 of 2023

Judge

Lubega, J

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient or direct interest to bring the action, as he is neither a member of parliament nor has he adduced evidence to prove he is a voter in the constituency of Hon. Zaake Francis. The principle of locus standi requires a direct or personal interest, not merely a general concern for governance or rule of law. The court also noted that the events giving rise to the application occurred in Parliament situated in Kampala, making the High Court at Kampala the appropriate forum. Consequently, the preliminary objection on locus standi dis…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Locus Standi
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Ultra Vires
• Fair Hearing

Minex Karia v Attorney General

Minex Karia v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 208 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 66 (17 March 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 208 of 2022

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court dismissed a judicial review application as moot after Parliament had already expunged the challenged Appendix 10 from the COSASE report.

• Judicial Review
• Mootness Doctrine
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Ultra Vires Actions
• Judicial-review
• Mootness

Naloda v Attorney General

Naloda v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 23 (23 August 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2014

Judge

Cheborion, JCC, Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Musoke, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC, Egonda-Ntende, JCC

The court held that its jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution is strictly limited to matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution. The petition failed to raise any question for constitutional interpretation, as it merely alleged that certain constitutional provisions were violated by the absence of members of Parliament without demonstrating a controversy or ambiguity requiring interpretation. The court further found that the impugned actions were those of individual members of Parliament, not the Government or the Attorney General, and that the proper parties were not be…

Source excerpt

• Constitutional Interpretation
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Jurisdiction Of Court
• Cause Of Action
• Public Accountability

Karuhanga & Another v The Parliamentary Commission & Another

Karuhanga & Another v The Parliamentary Commission & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 229 (15 June 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2020

Judge

Elubu, J

The High Court held it could not treat the matter as moot or dismiss it on jurisdictional grounds, but stayed the judicial review pending a related constitutional petition.

• Judicial Review
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Certiorari
• Mootness
• Constitutional Reference

Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors

Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2010) [2015] UGCC 2 (29 September 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2010

The court held that Parliament's constitutional duty under Article 78(4) to prescribe the procedure for elections of special interest group representatives (army, youth, workers) cannot be delegated to the Minister or any other body. The Parliamentary Elections Act and related regulations, to the extent that they delegated this duty, were declared unconstitutional and void. The court found that the exclusion of non-unionised workers and persons with disabilities not affiliated to NUDIPU from participating in elections violated the right to vote and freedom of association. However, the current…

Source excerpt

• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Special Interest Group Elections
• Freedom Of Association
• Right To Vote
• Discrimination
• Parliamentary Procedure

Mugarura v Attorney General

Mugarura v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2009) [2015] UGCC 5 (29 September 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2009

Judge

Kiryabwire, JA, Nshimye, JA

The court held that the petition disclosed a matter for constitutional interpretation as it alleged acts and cited constitutional provisions allegedly contravened. On the substantive issues, the court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the named commissioners lacked high moral character, proven integrity, or the requisite experience and competence. The court reviewed the commissioners' qualifications and experience, noting their professional backgrounds, prior service, and participation in numerous elections and international observation missions. The court further held that the C…

Source excerpt

• Electoral Commissions
• Public Appointments
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Constitutional Interpretation

Mugarura v Attorney General

Mugarura v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2009) [2015] UGCC 93 (29 September 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2009

The court held that the petition disclosed a matter for constitutional interpretation as it alleged acts and cited constitutional provisions allegedly contravened. On the substantive issues, the court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the commissioners lacked high moral character, proven integrity, considerable experience, or demonstrated competence in public affairs. The commissioners' CVs and affidavits established their qualifications, experience, and competence, including their roles in organizing numerous elections and participating in international observation missions. The…

Source excerpt

• Electoral Commissions
• Public Appointments
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Constitutional Interpretation

Komu v Attorney General of the Republic of Tanzania

Komu v Attorney General of the Republic of Tanzania [2014] EACJ 144 (26 September 2014) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Judge

Butasi JA, Lenaola JA, Ntezilyayo JA

The Court found that the National Assembly of Tanzania, by framing its election rules and procedures for EALA representatives solely around political parties and creating categories that subsumed all other groups under political party representation, violated Article 50(1) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. Article 50(1) requires, as much as feasible, separate and distinct representation for political parties, gender, shades of opinion, and special interest groups. The Court held that the creation of categories C (Opposition Political Parties) and D (Tanzania M…

Source excerpt

• Treaty Interpretation
• Election Of Regional Representatives
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Proportional Representation
• Political Party Rights