Mukisa v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Petition 17 of 2018; Consolidated Constitutional Petition 25 of 2018)
Mukisa v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Petition 17 of 2018; Consolidated Constitutional Petition 25 of 2018) [2023] UGCC 121 (24 May 2023)
The Constitutional Court held that the petition was fundamentally defective for bundling over thirty unrelated and diverse constitutional questions into a single action, many of which had already been conclusively determined in prior decisions. The court reaffirmed that its jurisdiction under Article 137 is limited to matters that clearly require constitutional interpretation, and mere allegations of constitutional violations without prima facie evidence do not suffice. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any new or unresolved constitutional questions, and his approach amounted to a vexatiou…
Source excerpt
- Constitutional Interpretation
- Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
- Procedural Requirements For Petitions
- Res Judicata
- Court Vacations And Access To Justice
- Government Proceedings And Notice