The Constitutional Court, in a landmark ruling, dismissed a petition brought by a one Jackson Ntwatwa challenging the court’s jurisdiction to handle interlocutory applications.
The decision, delivered yesterday by a panel of five justices— Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Justice Cheborion Barishaki, Justice Muzamiru M. Kibedi, Justice Irene Mulyagonja, and Justice Christopher Gashirabake—clarified the court’s authority and composition when addressing interim orders in constitutional matters.
The petition stemmed from a 2017 ruling in constitutional application in 2017 where a panel of three justices, led by Justice Kenneth Kakuru, declared that only a panel of five justices, as mandated by Article 137(2) of the 1995 Constitution, has the jurisdiction to hear applications for interim orders or temporary injunctions.
The 2017 ruling also controversially nullified all existing interim orders issued by single justices or three-justice panels, prompting Ntwatwa to file the current petition.
He argued that the nullification was inconsistent with Article 137, asserting that single justices or three-justice panels should be empowered to handle such applications.
In his petition, Ntwatwa sought several declarations, including that the 2017 ruling was unconstitutional, that interim order applications do not require constitutional interpretation, and that single or three-justice panels could lawfully handle them.
He also requested the court to set aside the 2017 orders and recognize the authority of smaller panels to issue interim orders.
Justice Muzamiru Mutangula Kibedi, delivering the lead judgment, rejected Ntwatwa’s claims, finding them based on a flawed premise. The court ruled that the 2017 “consequential orders” nullifying interim orders were not the majority decision of the court, as only Justice Kakuru had endorsed them, making them a minority opinion. Consequently, these orders did not constitute a binding decision, undermining the foundation of Jackson’s petition.
Drawing on the principle of “inherent judicial powers,” the court affirmed that it possesses the authority to hear such applications to ensure justice and uphold constitutional mandates, even in the absence of express constitutional provisions.
On the composition of the court, the justices unanimously held that only a panel of five justices, as stipulated under Article 137(2), is competent to hear interlocutory applications arising from constitutional petitions.
The court clarified that jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution or statutes, not subsidiary legislation, rendering Section 12 of the Judicature Act inapplicable to Constitutional Court proceedings.
The petition was dismissed as misconceived, with the court noting that it resembled a disguised appeal against the 2017 ruling rather than a matter requiring constitutional interpretation.
However, the court’s ruling provided clarity on a long-standing issue of judicial practice, resolving conflicting precedents on the court’s composition for interlocutory matters.
No costs were awarded, as the court recognized the petition as public interest litigation that allowed it to address a significant legal question.
The decision is seen as a pivotal step in reinforcing the Constitutional court’s authority and ensuring procedural consistency in handling constitutional matters.
