none

none

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA
AT KAMPALA
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NUMBER 40 OF 2013.



1. ADVOCATES FOR NATURAL
RESOURCES GOVERNANCE AND
DEVELOPMENT
2. IRUMBA ASUMANI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PETITIONERS
3. PETER MAGELAH
VERSUS
1. ATTORNEY GENERAL
2. UGANDA NATIONAL
ROADS AUTHORITY ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON MR. JUSTICE REMMY KASULE, JA
HON.MR.ELDAD MWANGUSYA, JA
HON. LADY JUSTICE FAITH E.K. MWONDHA, JA
HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU, JA
HON. MR. JUSTICE GEOFREY KIRYABWIRE, JA

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This petition was brought jointly by three petitioners namely;
1. Advocates for Natural Resources Governance and Development
2. Irumba Asuman
3. Peter Magelah
It is stated in the petition that it was brought under Article 137 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and also under the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References) Rules Statutory Instrument Number 19 of 2005.
We must state from the onset that the petition is not well drafted to say the least. It is not very clear to me what the petitioners sought to achieve. It also has a number of grammatical and clerical errors. In this Petition volumes of materials were filed in Court that required a lot of time to read and analyse. It later turned out that they were all irrelevant. They were never referred to in court by any of the Advocates. All I can say is that the advocates involved should have been more diligent.
The sub articles under which the petition was brought are not stated. We will assume it was brought under Article 137(1) (2) (3) of the Constitution.
Article 137(3) stipulates as follows;
3. “A person who alleges that:
a. An Act of parliament or any other law or anything in or done under the authority of any law or
b. Any act or omission by any person or authority is inconsistent with or in contravention of a provision of this Constitution may petition the Constitutional...

Similar Essays