Substantive rights

Tusingwire v Attorney General (Constititutional Application No. 06 of 2013) [2013] UGCC 3 (12 July 2013);


Search Summary: 

The applicant was charged in the Anti-Corruption division of the High
Court and brought a constitutional petition in this Court challenging
constitutionality of Practice Directions of the Court made by the Chief
Justice. The application was brought for stay of proceedings in the trial
court pending determination of the constitutional petition.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court observed that at the stage of proceedings parties had delved
into substantive matters of the petition and that conflicts in the evidence
would not be resolved at that stage. The court also considered the
respondent’s contention as to the applicant’s locus standi and it was
resolved that the defending a constitution was a duty imposed by the
constitution whose implementation could be by filing a constitutional
petition to challenge the legality law.
The court considered the grounds for grant of the temporary injunction
and observed that a prima facie case had been made when the applicant
proved the existence of the impugned practice directions; that the petition
was neither misconceived, frivolous nor vexatious and that and the
balance of convenience was in favor of the applicant whose constitutional
right of fair hearing
The application was thereby allowed.


Subscribe to RSS - Substantive rights