Supreme Court Civil Application No. 05 of 2019
We argued the only case, so far, that asked court to sanction the Attorney General for contempt. We sought from the Supreme Court a declaration that the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, was officially in contempt of the Court Orders in Presidential Election No. 1 of 2016 following his failure to follow up on the implementation of the Court’s recommendations with state organs, as the court had charged him to do. This case laid down Uganda’s Supreme Court’s interpretation of what amounts to civil contempt in Uganda and how it differs from criminal contempt. It remains the reigning precedent on contempt of court in Uganda’s superior courts. Importantly, the decision led to the timely wider reform of several electoral laws ahead of the general elections in 2021.
Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2016
We successfully represented CEHURD in opposing BAT’s petition that challenged the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act, No. 22 of 2015 for being inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995. We provided the strategy that steered the Respondents to victory. Adopting a rather unusual approach in Uganda Constitutional litigation, we urged the Respondents to concede the point on whether the provisions of the statute violated the impleaded articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, but argue instead that the violations were demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. We provided a rather unique way of meeting the “Mulenga test” in Charles Onyango Obbo v AG, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002 by arguing that the evidence that the violations were demonstrably justifiable lay in the fact that the Tobacco Control Act was consistent with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to which a community of 190 countries had acceded. We also forcefully and successfully opposed all the World Trade organization (WTO) law questions and challenges that BAT raised. Our submissions on WTO law were the fulcrum of the court’s decision to strike down those grounds in the petition.
MA No. 0671 of 2021
Applications for temporary injunctions are often routine and often settle questions of fact. In this Application, however, the court set down several rules that parties had not yet litigated in Ugandan jurisprudence. The decision settled the untested question of the meaning of doing business in Ugandan law. It provides an eloquent interpretation of “carrying on business in Uganda” within the meaning of Section 4 of the Partnerships Act, 2010. The Court also addressed the circumstances under which Ugandan law would require a foreign partnership to register. It found that requiring all partnerships remotely carrying on business in Uganda or conducting a single transaction, without a physical presence in Uganda, to register under the Business Names Registration Act, “would create an absurdity in the wake of the modern exponential growth of global digital businesses with increased international business relations, cross border transactions, and mobility.” The court also set down a firm rule against suing an agent of a known and disclosed principal. The High Court also affirmed the view that existence of a partnership under Ugandan law, as is the case in most of the commonwealth, is a question of contract and not status or operation of law.
MA No. 0414 of 2022
We successfully represented the Respondents in opposing an Application for the High Court (Commercial Division) to injunct criminal proceedings before the Chief Magistrates Court. This case recognized the judicial independence of the lower courts and established the Commercial Court’s position that a party seeking a superior court’s intervention in a lower court’s handling of cases before such a lower court can only do so by invoking the High Court’s prerogative or supervisory authority, and not in any other manner. The case protected an individual’s right to bring a private prosecution and underscored the principle that Advocates should be able to practice independently and without threat of intimidation or fear of retributive litigation. The decision emphasizes that any unwarranted interference with an Advocate’s duty as an officer of the court is a serious violation of the independence of the legal profession. Further, the decision sets down the grounds upon which the Court may award costs against Advocates personally.
We successfully represented the Petitioner in overturning a parliamentary election on the qualitative substantiality test. We successfully argued that once there has been a violation of the Constitution, the election must fall. In this case, we based our disenfranchisement argument on gerrymandering. Our success in the High Court and Court of Appeal cements a unique approach to challenging parliamentary elections.