Constitutional Court Reaffirms That Its Jurisdiction Is Limited to Constitutional Interpretation, Not Individual Rights Enforcement

Imagine a petitioner, determined to recover UGX 405,000,000 seized by seized Uganda Police during an investigation, convinced that his constitutional right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution was violated. His journey led him to the Constitutional Court after the High Court, in Miscellaneous Cause No. 169 of 2015, dismissed his application for judicial review. Justice Kabiito had declined to order the release of the funds, ruling that the payment was fraudulent and therefore null and void.

Instead of appealing this decision, the petitioner brought the matter before the Constitutional Court, which should have been addressed as an appeal, not as a constitutional petition. Petitioner's Argument

The petitioner argued that the seizure of his funds violated Article 26 (protection of property) and Article 120 (powers of the DPP) of the Constitution. He sought the court's intervention to enforce his rights, alleging wrongful retention of the funds despite his cooperation with investigators.

A DISGUISED APPEAL?

Justice Irene Mulyagonja, delivering the unanimous judgment, observed that the petitioner had first approached the High Court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 169 of 2015 for judicial review. In that case, Justice Kabiito declined to order the release of the funds, ruling that the payment was fraudulent and null. Instead of appealing this decision to the Court of Appeal, the petitioner filed a fresh petition in the Constitutional Court.

The court saw through this maneuver. Justice Mulyagonja stated:

"This petition does not call for the interpretation of any provision of the Constitution but for its enforcement. A disguised appeal cannot bring remedies denied by a court of competent jurisdiction."

THE RULING

In dismissing the petition, the court emphasized that jurisdiction could only arise if the matter required interpretation of the Constitution. Since the petition was primarily an attempt to enforce rights already adjudicated in the High Court, it fell outside the scope of Article 137. Justice Mulyagonja concluded:

"In the circumstances, there is no need for me to consider the substantive grounds of the petition. This petition has no merit whatsoever and is dismissed with no order as to costs."

Enforcement vs. Interpretation

The court highlighted the distinction between enforcing constitutional rights and interpreting the Constitution. As noted in Tinyefuza v AG, the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction is limited to questions that hinge on interpreting the Constitution. It is not a forum for enforcing rights unless the enforcement is tied to such interpretation.

Justice Irene Mulyagonja, further held that the petitioner’s case did not raise any question requiring the interpretation of the Constitution. Instead, it was a veiled appeal against the High Court’s decision, which the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.

TAKEAWAYS FOR PRACTITIONERS

Understand Jurisdiction
Always evaluate whether the court being approached has jurisdiction over the matter.
Follow Proper Appeals If dissatisfied with a High Court decision, consider appealing directly to the Court of Appeal instead of disguising the appeal as a constitutional petition.
Distinguish Interpretation vs. Enforcement The Constitutional Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to enforce rights unless interpretation is central to the dispute. By Waboga David