LAW RESEARCH CLUB CASE DIGESTER

Ojambo Steven

Dr. James Rwanyarale & another::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Petitioners.

Versus

Attorney General::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Respondent.

Summary of Court Findings.

The Constitutional Court emphasized that;

The Constitution does not negate the rules of procedure under Article 126 (2) (e), but rather it is a time table within which certain steps ought to be take.
Parties ought to be concerned with the limitation periods for different causes of action.
The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction under Article 137, and not enforcement of human rights under Article 50.

The Constitutional Court held that it is not within its jurisdiction to unseat the President and the Members of Parliament, since such cause of action that raises against them are lodged to the Supreme Court and the High Court respectively.

Factual Background.

The 1^st Petitioner James Rwanyarare (Petitioned on his own behalf), The 2^nd Petitioner Oweyegha Afunaduula, against the Attorney General as the Respondent.

The petitioners sought orders; –

Prohibition against the respondent, his servants and or agents from any and further violations of their inherent and inalienable fundamental rights and freedoms and those of their party – the Uganda Peoples Congress, by implementing Articles 69(1), 72(2), 73(1), 74(1) and (2), 269 and 271 of the Constitution.
Redress, including compensation and costs of the petition.

Key Findings of the Court.
The court stated that its jurisdiction can only be invoked under Article 137, on questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution and not under Article 50 for the enforcement of human rights.
Therefore, the Court could not unseat the President and the Members of Parliament, as prayed by the petitioners, because the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and also it was time barred.

Legal Implications and Key Constitutional Law Practice Takeaways.
The jurisdictions of the Constitutional Court can only be invoked under Article 137 of the Constitution, where questions to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in the matter.
Article 126 (2) (e) of the Constitution does not negate the rules procedure to institute a petition to the court.
The effect of preliminary objection point of law if successful argued can lead to the dismissal or striking out of the case. Under Order 6 rule 28 & 30 of the CPR.