Constitutional Court Of Uganda Confirms Its Jurisdictional Limits

It Is A Long Standing Fact That The Constitutional Court Of Uganda Is Concerned With Matters Relating To The Constitution. The Constitutional Court Is Established Under Article 134 Of The 1995 Constitution. It Is An Appellate Court When Hearing Cases Appealed From The High Court Of Uganda. However, It Has Original Jurisdiction When Adjudicating Matters Relating To The Constitutionality Of Matters Before It.

Sometimes, It Is Not Clear In The Minds Of People As To What Exactly Is The Limit Of This Court's Powers As Matters Of Human Rights Enforcement Too, Have Been Brought Before The Constitutional Court And Dismissal Of Some Matters Has Left Questions Hanging As To What Is The True Jurisdiction Of This Court. The Case, Kabenge V The Attorney General, ULS, Peter Mulira, Prof. Kanyeihamba Et Al (Constitutional Petition 53 Of 2012) [2024] UGCC 18 (22 May 2024) Summarized Below, Gives The Answer To This Question As Follows;

BRIEF FAThej

The Petitioner Filed A Constitutional Petition Alleging Professional Misconduct By Senior Members Of The Bar Against Some Members Of The Bench. He Also Al- Leged Persecution By Members Of The Police Force, And Seeks Redress For All These Actions, As Well As The Failure Of The First And Second Respondents To Forestall The Cited Respondents' Actions. The Petitioner Also Claimed That The Respondents Trampled On His Right To Practice His Profession And Protect The In- Stitutional Integrity Of The Judiciary.

RESOLUTION

Citing Article 40(2) of the Constitution which states that every person in Uganda has the right to practise his or her profession and to carry on any lawful occupation, trade or business. Justice Monica K Mugenyi contended that the right to practice one's profession is unequivocally and succinctly delineated and that the enforcement of the Petitioner's right to practice his profession does not require constitutional interpretation so as to ensue under Article 187(4) of the Constitution but is rather enforceable under applicable statutory laws.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Whilst noting that the Petitioner faulted the Third to Sixth Respondents for frustrating his right to practice his profession either in defence of the judiciary or otherwise, Court noted that the applicable statutory laws would include the Advocates Act, Cap. 267 that lays out an elaborate framework within which advocates pursue their right to practice their profession, and includes the disciplinary mechanism for professional misconduct and that the Uganda Law Soci- ety Act, on the other hand, delineates the processes that govern the Second Re- spondent. Furthermore, court also noted that the First Respondent's vicarious liability for the Petitioner's persecution by members of the police force would similarly ensue under the ordinary civil courts

HOLDING

Citing the case of Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another, Court held that insofar as the Petitioner seeks to enforce rights that do not call for consti- tutional interpretation, his remedy lies under Article 50(1) of the Constitution before the ordinary courts of law rather than this constitutional court