Nagoli v Attorney General & Anor
Nagoli v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 2006) [2006] UGCC 2 (24 October 2006)
The Constitutional Court held that while the reference disclosed a cause of action under Article 137(5) of the Constitution, it was not maintainable because the acts complained of arose from a written contract whose terms and performance were still in dispute and pending determination in the High Court. The court reasoned that constitutional interpretation should not be undertaken where the underlying contractual issues have not been resolved, as the constitutional questions may be rendered moot or unnecessary depending on the outcome of the contractual dispute. Therefore, the reference was p…
Source excerpt
- Constitutional Interpretation
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Ministerial Powers
- Contractual Disputes
- Prematurity Of Reference