DOCSLIB.ORG

LR-Friend of the Court & the 2010 Constitution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LR-Friend of the Court & the 2010 Constitution Friend of The Court & The 2010 Constitution: The Kenyan Experience and Comparative State Practice on Amicus Curiae Edited by: Christopher Kerkering Christopher Mbazira Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................ iii Foreword: Chief Justice ................................................................... xi Preface: Yash Ghai ........................................................................... xiii Contributor Bios and Organizational Profiles .................................. xxi Introduction ................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Friend of the Court Perspective from the Bench: Emerging Jurisprudence on the Role of the Friend of the Court in Kenya. By Hon. Justice (Prof) James Otieno Odek .............................. 9 1. Introduction .......................................................................... 9 1.1 Distinction Between Amicus Curiae and an Interested Party .............................................................................. 11 2. Admission of an Amicus Curiae and Interested Party in Proceedings ........................................................................... 13 2.1 Legal Provisions ............................................................. 13 2.2 Supreme Court Rules .................................................... 14 2.3 Mutunga Rules .............................................................. 15 3. Admission of an Amicus Curiae .............................................. 17 4. Admission of an Interested Party ............................................ 18 5. Role of an Amicus Curiae ....................................................... 19 6. Conclusion ............................................................................ 22 Chapter 2: Friend of the Court: An Assessment of Its Role in Kenya’s Judicial Process. By Christopher Kerkering ............................ 23 1. Introduction........................................................................... 23 iii Friend of The Court & The 2010 Constitution 2. Amicus Curiae Participation in Kenya Prior to the Implementation of the 2010 Constitution ............................. 24 2.1 The Legacy of the Makali, Gachoka and Njoya Cases under the 2010 Constitution ................................................... 30 3. Constitutional and Statutory Sources of Law on Friend of the Court Participation .......................................................... 31 3.1 The Constitutional Right to articipateP in Cases Involving the Bill of Rights ............................................ 32 3.2 The utungaM Rules and the Article 22(3)(e) Right to Participate as a Friend of the Court ................................ 37 3.3 Using Expertise, Impartiality, Independence, and Relevance to Regulate Article 22(3)(e) Submissions ....... 40 3.3.1 Expertise ............................................................. 41 3.3.1.1 Fields of Expertise ................................... 41 3.3.1.2 Relevancy of Expertise ............................ 42 3.3.1.3 Qualifications of an Expert ..................... 44 3.3.2 Impartiality and Bias ........................................... 45 3.3.2.1 Implied Bias ........................................... 46 3.3.2.2 Actual Bias ............................................. 49 3.3.3 Independence ...................................................... 51 3.4 The ttorney-General’sA Constitutional Right to Participate as Friend of the Court ................................... 51 3.5 The Court’s Ability to Appoint a Friend of the Court on Its Own Motion ........................................................ 52 3.6 Friend of the Court Participation in Cases that Do Not Involve Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ...... 54 iv The Kenyan Experience and Comparative State Practice on Amicus Curiae 3.7 Amicus Curiae Participation in the Court of Appeals, High Court, and Subordinate Courts ............................. 56 3.8 Friend of the Court Participation in Criminal Cases ...... 56 3.9 The Court’s Ultimate Authority: Determining Which Submissions Are Worth Its Attention ............................. 58 4. Conclusion ............................................................................ 59 Chapter 3: The Place of Friend of the Court in Election Dispute Resolution in Uganda Comparative to Kenya. By Christopher Mbazira ............................................................................................ 60 1. Introduction ........................................................................... 60 2. Unpacking the Concept ......................................................... 62 3. Kenya Comparative to Uganda and the East African Court ........ 64 4. Approach to Bias and Impartiality .......................................... 66 5. Approach in Election Disputes ............................................... 71 6. Conclusion ............................................................................. 77 Chapter 4: Amicus Curiae Participation in Foreign Jurisdictions ...... 78 1. Use of Foreign Law in Amicus Jurisprudence ........................... 80 2. South Africa ........................................................................... 82 2.1 Relationship of Amicus Curiae to the Courts ................... 82 2.2 South Africa: Procedures for Admission-Court Rules and Case Law ................................................................. 83 2.3 Duty of Amicus to the Courts-Underlying Principles...... 85 2.4 Amicus and Introduction of New Evidence ...................... 85 2.5 Amicus Participation-Prejudice Incurred by Delay .......... 87 v Friend of The Court & The 2010 Constitution 2.6 Amicus Submission-Partisanship or Bias ......................... 88 2.7 Amicus Participation-Criminal Cases ............................. 88 2.8 Amicus and Costs of Litigation ........................................ 89 3. Canada .................................................................................... 89 3.1 Canadian Court Overview .............................................. 89 3.2 Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada ........................... 90 3.3 Intervention in Federal Courts of Canada ....................... 92 3.4 Canadian Provincial Courts ............................................. 93 3.4.1 Ontario ............................................................... 93 3.4.1.1 The atureN of the Case: Constitutional Disputes Versus Private Litigation .......... 94 3.4.1.2 Issues Involved in the Dispute ............... 96 3.4.1.3 Applicant’s Ability to Contribute to the Resolution of the Dispute ................ 97 3.4.1.4 Impartiality ........................................... 97 3.4.1.5 Costs ..................................................... 98 3.4.1.6 Criminal Cases ...................................... 99 3.5 Role of Amicus in Canadian Courts ................................ 99 4. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ........ 100 4.1 Non-Party Participation in the Supreme Court: Amicus, Assessor, and Intervener in the Public Interest ................ 100 4.2 Appointment of an Assessor ........................................... 101 4.3 Intervening Parties: Intervention in the Public Interest .... 101 4.4 Substance of Intervener Submissions ............................... 103 5. India ...................................................................................... 103 vi The Kenyan Experience and Comparative State Practice on Amicus Curiae 5.1 Amicus Participation at the Indian Supreme Court ........... 103 5.2 Amicus as Appointed Counsel .......................................... 104 5.3 Court-Appointed Expert and Third-Party Amicus Particpation .................................................................... 105 6. United States .......................................................................... 108 7. Colombia ............................................................................... 114 8. Mexico ................................................................................... 115 9. Argentina .............................................................................. 116 10. Conclusion .......................................................................... 117 Chapter 5: Friend of the Court Participation in Regional Courts By Christine Nkonge, the Katiba Institute; the Public Interest Law and Policy Group; and Equality Now ......................................... 118 1. Introduction .......................................................................... 120 2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights ................................ 120 2.1 Inter-American Court Definition and Procedure ............ 122 2.2 Impact of Friend of the Court Participation ................... 125 3. European Court of Human Rights ......................................... 128 3.1 European Court Procedure ............................................ 129 3.1.1 Additional Criteria for Admissibility ................... 130 3.1.2 The roperP Administration of Justice ................... 131 3.1.3 Additional Discretionary Criteria ........................ 131 3.1.4 Precedent ............................................................ 134 3.1.5 Avoiding Duplication .......................................... 134 3.2 Types of Interveners ....................................................... 134 vii Friend of The Court & The 2010 Constitution 3.3 Impact of Third-Party Submissions ...............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uganda's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments Through 2017
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:53 constituteproject.org Uganda's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2017 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:53 Table of contents Preamble . 14 NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY . 14 General . 14 I. Implementation of objectives . 14 Political Objectives . 14 II. Democratic principles . 14 III. National unity and stability . 15 IV. National sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity . 15 Protection and Promotion of Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms . 15 V. Fundamental and other human rights and freedoms . 15 VI. Gender balance and fair representation of marginalised groups . 15 VII. Protection of the aged . 16 VIII. Provision of adequate resources for organs of government . 16 IX. The right to development . 16 X. Role of the people in development . 16 XI. Role of the State in development . 16 XII. Balanced and equitable development . 16 XIII. Protection of natural resources . 16 Social and Economic Objectives . 17 XIV. General social and economic objectives . 17 XV. Recognition of role of women in society . 17 XVI. Recognition of the dignity of persons with disabilities . 17 XVII. Recreation and sports . 17 XVIII. Educational objectives . 17 XIX. Protection of the family . 17 XX. Medical services . 17 XXI. Clean and safe water . 17 XXII. Food security and nutrition . 18 XXIII. Natural disasters . 18 Cultural Objectives . 18 XXIV. Cultural objectives . 18 XXV. Preservation of public property and heritage . 18 Accountability . 18 XXVI. Accountability . 18 The Environment .
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995
    CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995. Arrangement of the Constitution. Preliminary matter. Arrangement of objectives. Arrangement of chapters and schedules. Arrangement of articles. Preamble. National objectives and directive principles of State policy. Chapters. Schedules. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995. National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. Arrangement of Objectives. Objective General. I. Implementation of objectives. Political objectives. II. Democratic principles. III. National unity and stability. IV. National sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Protection and promotion of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. V. Fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. VI. Gender balance and fair representation of marginalised groups. VII. Protection of the aged. VIII. Provision of adequate resources for organs of Government. IX. The right to development. X. Role of the people in development. XI. Role of the State in development. XII. Balanced and equitable development. XIII. Protection of natural resources. Social and economic objectives. XIV. General social and economic objectives. XV. Recognition of the role of women in society. XVI. Recognition of the dignity of persons with disabilities. XVII. Recreation and sports. XVIII. Educational objectives. XIX. Protection of the family. XX. Medical services. XXI. Clean and safe water. 1 XXII. Food security and nutrition. XXIII. Natural disasters. Cultural objectives. XXIV. Cultural objectives. XXV. Preservation of public property and heritage. Accountability. XXVI. Accountability. The environment. XXVII. The environment. Foreign policy objectives. XXVIII. Foreign policy objectives. Duties of a citizen. XXIX. Duties of a citizen. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995. Arrangement of Chapters and Schedules. Chapter 1. The Constitution. 2. The Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Media Freedom Debate at Uganda's Independence Golden Jubilee
    REVISITING THE MEDIA FREEDOM DEBATE AT UGANDA'S INDEPENDENCE GOLDEN JUBILEE Michael Kakooza REALITY CHECK Revisiting the media freedom debate at Uganda’s independence golden jubilee Written by Dr. Michael Kakooza The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and Uganda Media Development Foundation but rather those of the author. REVISITING THE MEDIA FREEDOM DEBATE AT UGANDA’S INDEPENDENCE GOLDEN JUBILEE i REALITY CHECK Revisiting the media freedom debate at Uganda’s independence golden jubilee Published by: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Uganda 51. A Prince Charles Drive, Kololo P.O. Box 647, Kampala, Tel. +256 414 254611 www.kas.de ISBN: 978 9970 153 08 4 In partnership with: Uganda Media Development Foundation Plot 976 Mugerwa Road. Bukoto P.O.Box 21778 Kampala, Tel. +256 414 532083 www.umdf.co.ug © Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.v. 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. ii REVISITING THE MEDIA FREEDOM DEBATE AT UGANDA’S INDEPENDENCE GOLDEN JUBILEE Table of Contents Foreword ...................................................................................... 1 Preface ............................................................................................3 Profile of the Author ....................................................................... 6 Acknowledgements .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    United Nations CCPR/SP/89 International Covenant on Distr.: General 7 May 2018 Civil and Political Rights Original: English Meeting of States parties Thirty-sixth meeting New York, 14 June 2018 Item 5 of the provisional agenda Election, in accordance with articles 28–34 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2018 Election of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2018 Note by the Secretary-General 1. In conformity with articles 28 to 32 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the thirty-sixth meeting of States parties to the Covenant is to be held at United Nations Headquarters on 14 June 2018 for the purpose of electing nine members of the Human Rights Committee from a list of persons nominated by States parties (sect. II), to replace those whose terms of office will expire on 31 December 2018 (sect. I). I. Members of the Committee whose terms will expire on 31 December 2018 Name of member Country of nationality Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia Ms. Sarah Cleveland United States of America Mr. Olivier de Frouville France Mr. Yuji Iwasawa Japan Ms. Ivana Jelić Montenegro Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece Mr. Mauro Politi Italy Ms. Margo Waterval Suriname GE.18-07172 (E) 220518 230518 CCPR/SP/89 II. Persons nominated by States parties 2. In accordance with article 30 (2) of the Covenant, the Secretary-General, in a note verbale dated 15 December 2017, invited the States parties to submit, in conformity with article 29 of the Covenant, their nominations for the election of nine members of the Committee by 9 April 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty in Africa: a Comparative Constitutional Analysis
    THE ABOLITION OF THE MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY IN AFRICA: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Andrew Novak* 1. INTRODUCTION The mandatory death penalty for the crime of murder is in rapid retreat worldwide. Originally diffused to the common law countries of the Caribbean, Africa, and South and Southeast Asia by way of the British Empire, the penalty has been found unconstitutional and incompatible with human rights norms in at least ten Caribbean nations since the year 2000. A new wave of litigation has appeared in the postcolonial common law nations of East and Southern Africa, and courts in Malawi, Uganda, and now Kenya have found an automatic sentence of death unconstitutional and have replaced mandatory schemes with discretionary ones that allow consideration of mitigating factors in the capital sentencing process.1 The resulting criminal justice regimes operate in closer conformity with international human rights norms and explicitly adopt these norms in their domestic legal systems. This harmonization of death penalty regimes across borders is no accident: it was the deliberate intention of a small network of international anti- death penalty advocates to create a body of transnational jurisprudence from which to draw in bringing incremental challenges in national courts.2 By initially petitioning the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inter- American Human Rights System to find the mandatory death penalty incompatible with human rights treaty obligations, this core of advocates succeeded in developing a corpus of persuasive reasoning on which they could * Adjunct Professor of African Law, American University Washington College of Law. The author has a Juris Doctor, Boston University School of Law, and a Master of Science (Hons.), African Politics, London School of Oriental and African Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme Court of Uganda, at Kampala (Coram: Katureebe; Tumwesigye; Kisaakye; Arach-Amoko; Odoki,Tsekooko; Okello; Jj.S.C.)
    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA (CORAM: KATUREEBE; TUMWESIGYE; KISAAKYE; ARACH-AMOKO; ODOKI,TSEKOOKO; OKELLO; JJ.S.C.). CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2011 B E T W E E N AMOOTI GODFREY NYAKAANA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT AND 1. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL 3. ADVOCATES COALITION FOR DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT 4. ENVIRONMENT ALERT ::::RESPONDENTS 5. GREENWATCH 6. UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY 7. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK (Appeal from the Judgments and Orders of the Constitutional Court at Kampala, A.E. Mpagi- Bahigeine, A. Twinomujuni, C.N.B. Kitumba, C.K. Byamugisha and S.B. Kavuma, JJA, dated 9th November 2009 in Constitutional Petition No. 03 of 2005). JUDGMENT OF B. M. KATUREEBE, CJ. This appeal raises issues pertaining to environmental protection vis-à-vis individual property rights, and the Constitutionality of certain sections of the National Environment Act. BACKGROUND. The appellant filed a Constitutional Petition in the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Petition No. 03 of 2005) under the provisions of Article 137 (3) of the Constitution and Rule 3 of the Rules of that Court. In that Petition, the appellant challenged the Constitutionality of Sections 67, 68 and 70 of the National Environment Act (Cap 153) Laws of Uganda. He contended that the impugned sections contravene and are inconsistent with Articles 21, 24, 26, 28, 42, 44, 237 and 259 of the Constitution. He further contended that the impugned sections also contravene and are inconsistent with various international Human Rights Conventions and Instruments entrenched in the Constitution under Articles 20 and 45 of the Constitution. The appellant sought declaration and orders for redress.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala
    f' THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [CORAM:KATUREEBE,C.J; TUMWESIGYE; KISAAKYE; ARACH-AMOKO, 5 NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA, OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TmATEMWA- EK1RIKUBINZA, J JSC} CIVIL APPLICATION NO 03 OF 2016 [Arising from Election Petition No. 01 of2016] 10 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS AMICUS CURIAE BY THE APPLICANTS HEREIN ARISING FROM ELECTION PETITION NO. 01 OF 2016. 15 BE1WEEN 1. FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATNE. 20 2. UGANDA ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS (FIDA UGANDA) 3. CHAPrER FOUR UGANDA 4. HUMAN RIGHTS NETWORK UGANDA 5. CENTRE FOR CONSTITIITIONAL GOVERNANCE 25 6. KITUO CHA KATIBA, EASTERN AFRICAN CENTRE FOR CONSTITIITIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7. LEGAL AID SERVICE PROVIDERS NE1WORK UGANDA 8. TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS 30 AND AMAMA· MBABAZI··············································.............•.........•....••.•.......•...••.....•.... -] PE'I'll'IONER 1 ; ,,'" ". } 1. YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI 2. ELECTORAL COMMISSION 3 .~A 'TIORNEY GENERAL ........................•.........•...............................•.....•....... ] RESPONDENTS 5 RULING OF THE COURT This application was brought by 8 applicants which are Civil Society Organizations. The applicants are non-governmental organizations and Civil Society Organizations. They were 10 accredited by the Electoral Commission as Election Observers. Some of the applicants are members of the Citizen Coalition for Electoral Democracy (CCEDU) and others are members of Citizens Coalition for Election Observers Network (CEON). The applicants are seeking leave of this Court to be admitted as V 15 Amici Curiae in Presidential Election Petition No. 01 of 2016, permission to file amicus curiae brief in the form of written submissions and filing any further materials that the Court may deem fit. The applicants are also seeking such further orders that this Court may deem appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights and Democracy [In Nigeria]: Agenda for a New Era
    AfriHeritage Occasional Paper Vol 1. No1. 2019 AfriHeritage Occasional Paper Vol 1. No1. 2019 HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY [IN NIGERIA]: AGENDA FOR A NEW ERA By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu 1 AfriHeritage Occasional Paper Vol 1. No1. 2019 Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 2. MEDIATING MULTI-DIMENSIONAL POLARITIES: IN SEARCH OF OUR BIG IDEA . 5 (a) Democracy, Counting and Accounting: The Idea of Political Numeracy ........... 8 (b) Democracy: The idea of Legitimacy .............................................................................. 11 (c) Human Rights: The Idea of Political Values ................................................................ 16 (d) Democracy and Digital Frisson: The Idea of Good Civic Manners ..................... 21 (a) Mis-Managing Diversity & Institutionalising Discrimination ............................... 28 (b) A Country that Cannot Count ......................................................................................... 34 (c) The Destruction of Accountability Institutions .......................................................... 40 (d) Legitimising Illegitimacy .................................................................................................... 44 4. ADDRESSING NIGERIA’S MULTIPLE CRISES OF STATEHOOD AND FRAGMENTATION
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Direct Investment in Uganda and Rwanda; a Cross-Country Analysis
    M.Sc. International Business Foreign Direct Investment in Uganda and Rwanda; a Cross-Country Analysis Christoph Kissel 15/12/2013 M.Sc. Thesis Foreign Direct Investment in Uganda and Rwanda; a Cross-Country Analysis M.Sc. International Business Reykjavik University Author Christoph Kissel Examiner Prof. Dr. Gerhard Apfelthaler Date December 15, 2013 Keywords: Uganda, Rwanda, Foreign Direct Investment, Globalization, Economic and Political Risk Declaration of Research Work Integrity This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature of any degree. This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. By signing the present document, I confirm and agree that I have read RU’s ethics code of conduct and fully understand the consequences of violating these rules in regards of my thesis. December 15, 2013, Leonberg, Germany Christoph Kissel (Kennitala 050182-3129) i Abstract This thesis has been written to delineate motivational factors and country-related opportunities and constraints of foreign investors who run a subsidiary in Rwanda or Uganda with the intention of discussing why foreign entities are investing in either of the two countries and what market entry modes and strategies are used. This document’s results intend to help foreign enterprises in deciding why, how and where either of the two countries’ markets could be entered via FDI. The first chapter contains the study’s objectives, its research questions and problem statement – which is: “if drivers exceed restraining forces, foreign entities choose Rwanda and/or Uganda as a destination for FDI”.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SCR PERUMAL V. JANAKI (Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2014)
    [2014] 1 S.C.R. 591 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. PERUMAL A A initiate proceedings against respondent on the basis of the v. complaint of appellant in accordance with law – Penal Code, JANAKI 1860 – ss.191, 193. (Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2014) On a complaint of one ‘N’ that the appellant enticed JANUARY 20, 2014. her of marrying her and had sexual interaction and on B B account of that ‘N’ became pregnant, a case was [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] registered against the appellant under Sections 417 and 506(i) IPC by the respondent-sub-inspector. The CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: respondent thereafter filed a charge sheet with an assertion that the appellant was responsible for making ss.195, 340 – Private complaint – Maintainability – C C ‘N’ pregnant. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and Private complaint against respondent-police officer by appellant was acquitted of both the charges. The High appellant praying for trial of the respondent u/s.193, IPC on Court affirmed the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed a the ground that the appellant was prosecuted in a criminal complaint under Section 190, Cr.P.C. praying that the case on the basis of a palpably false statement made by the respondent be tried for an offence under Section 193 IPC. respondent – Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the D D The complaint was dismissed on the ground that in view ground that in view of ss.195 and 340, the complaint of the of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of Judicial Review in Uganda & South
    Concordia University - Portland CU Commons Faculty Scholarship School of Law 2009 African Courts and Separation of Powers: A Comparative Study of Judicial Review in Uganda & South Joseph M. Isanga Concordia University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.cu-portland.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons CU Commons Citation Joseph M. Isanga, African Courts and Separation of Powers: A Comparative Study of Judicial Review in Uganda & South, 2 Nw. Interdisc. L. Rev. 69, 102 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at CU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of CU Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AFRICAN COURTS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN UGANDA & SOUTH Dr. Joseph M. Isanga, LL.B, LL.M, J.S.D.* Ave MariaSchool of Law Abstract: Achieving political stability in a transitional democracy is a fundamental goal, the resoluteness of which is in part maintained by courts of judicial review that are independent from political bias and devoid of deference to traditionally more powerful branches of government. The recent democratic transitions occurring in the African nations of South Africa and Uganda provide a unique, contemporary insight into the formation of a constitutional jurisprudence. This study is an examination of pivotal cases decided by the Constitutional Courts of South Africa and Uganda, the roles that these decisions play in political stability, and the potential for political bias in the interpretation of a newborn constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda, Supreme Court
    3rdCongress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice ‘Constitutional Justice and Social Integration’ 28 September – 1 October 2014 Seoul, Republic of Korea Questionnaire Reply by the Supreme Court of Uganda Questionnaire A. Court description Introduction The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final court of appeal. It is also the appellate Constitutional Court. I. Basic texts The Supreme Court derives its powers from the Constitution of Uganda. II. Composition, procedure and organisation According to Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is duly constituted at any sitting if it consists of an uneven number not being less than five members of the court. When hearing appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal sitting as a Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court consists of a full bench of all members of the Supreme Court; and where any of them is not able to attend, the President, for that purpose, appoints an acting justice to sit in his or her place. The Chief Justice presides at each sitting of the Supreme Court, and in the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior member of the court as constituted shall preside. Amendments were made through The Judicature (Amendment) Act 2011, which now states that the Supreme Court of Uganda shall consist of the Chief Justice and ten Justices of the Supreme Court. III. Jurisdiction/ Powers The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from such decisions of the Court of Appeal as are prescribed by law. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeal sitting as a constitutional court is entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision.
    [Show full text]