Constitutional Interpretation

Karugaba v Attorney General - CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004 (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2004) [2006] UGSC 9 (1 August 2006);

Flynote: 

Search Summary: 

The appellant who is a practising advocate
filed a petition in the Constitutional Court
seeking a declaration that “Rule 15 of the
Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petition for
Declarations under Article 137 of the
Constitution Directions 1996, is inconsistent
with Article 26(2) of the Constitution.” The
Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed
the petition as devoid of merit. The appellant
who appeared in person and represented
himself appealed to this court and filed a
Memorandum of Appeal containing seven
grounds that there was error in holding that a
right to petition the Constitutional Court under
Article 137 of the Constitution did not

constitute property of such a petitioner under
Article 26(2) of the Constitution.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court held that the right to petition the
Constitutional Court is vested in every person
in their own individual capacity, this is a clear
case where this right expires with the deceased
person and such death does not affect the rights
or obligations of any other person nor does the
death confer any residual rights to any other
person let alone the deceased’s counsel. That
For any right or interest to survive a deceased
person, that right or interest must conform to
the meaning given to property as stated in
Article 26 of the Constitution. That the right to
petition which is a chose in action is not one of
the property rights enumerated and described
in various sources both legal and non-legal.
The right to petition is optional to the holder
and is not inheritable.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Constitutional Interpretation