THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CORAM: HON. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO, JA HON. JUSTICE A.E.N.

MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, JA HON. JUSTICE S. G. ENGWAU, JA HON. JUSTICE A. TWINOMUJUNI, JA HON. JUSTICE C.N.B. KITUMBA, JA CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2003 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. UGANDA ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS DORA BYAMUKAMA JAQUELINE ASIIMWE MWESIGE PETER DDUNGU MATOVU JOE OLOKA ONYANGO PHILIP KARUGABA VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT JUDGMENT OF C.N.B. KITUMBA, JA I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of Twinomujuni, JA. I agree with him that the petition should succeed with no orders as to costs. The petition and the declarations sought are contained in the lead judgment and so are the arguments of counsel for both parties. I will not, therefore, repeat them here. However, I would like to make some comment. I will begin with the preliminary objection that the petition is time barred because of the provisions of Rule 4(1), The Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1992 (Legal Notice No. 4 of 1996.) The objection was dismissal by court. My reason for supporting the dismissal is that the framers of the Constitution did not impose a time limit when a Constitutional petition is to be filed. If, one takes such limitation to be time of perception, or when the act of Parliament is enacted this would lead to absurd situation whereby all citizens of Uganda would be obliged to read all statutes and find out whether any section thereof is inconsistent with any article of the Constitution. I agree with my learned brother that Rule 4 (1) of The Fundamental Rights Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1992 is a subsidiary legislation that is hindering peoples access to the Constitutional Court and has the effect of amending the Constitution. ] ] ] ] ] ]

PETITIONER

Peoples defence of the Constitution which is a duty to be observed all times as provided by article 3 (4) of the Constitution, in my view means, inter alia, filing a constitutional petition to challenge any law which a citizen thinks violates the Constitution. Regarding the impugned provisions of the Divorce Act, I entirely agree that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution as alleged in the petition. In the result I would allow this petition with no order as to costs. Dated at Kampala this.10th.day ofMarch.2004.

C. N. B. KITUMBA JUSTICE OF APPEAL