MBIDDE FOUNDATION LTD & HON. MARGARET ZZIWA v. THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
| Case Number | REFERENCES NOs. 3 & 5 OF 2014 |
| Summary | On 20th March 2014, MBIDDE FOUNDATION LTD, referred to as “1st Applicant”, filed Reference No.3 of 2014 in this Court alleging that the procedure for the removal of the Speaker of the East African Legislative Assembly infringes the EAC Treaty Provisions.
Thereafter, on 21st March 2014, some Members of the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) tabled a Notice of Motion for the removal of the Speaker from Office.
When the Petition for the removal of the Speaker of the EALA was introduced before the Assembly, RT. HON. MARGARET ZZIWA, (hereinafter to be referred as “the 2nd Applicant”) suddenly adjourned the Assembly sine die before the said Petition reached the Committee on Legal, Rules and Privileges for investigation as provided under the Rules of Procedure of EALA. The 2nd Applicant then filed Reference No.5 of 2014 on the 14th April 2014 before this Court challenging the Rules of Procedure for the removal of the Speaker as provided under the East African Legislative Assembly Rules of Procedure.
In the meantime and prior to the hearing of the main References, the 1st and 2nd Applicants filed separate Applications seeking interim Orders to restrain the EALA from investigating or removing the 2nd Applicant from Office pending the determination by the Court of References Nos.3 and 5 of 2014. Without delving into details, the two (2) Applications were consolidated and heard on 9th May 2014 and the Ruling related thereto was delivered on 29th May 2014.
|
| Respondent | The Secretary General of the East African Community & The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda |
| Complainant | Mbidde Foundation Ltd & Rt. Hon. Margaret Zziwa |
| Date filed | March 20, 2014 |
| Countries | East African Community , Uganda |
| Keyword | EALA |
| Treaty Article | Article 4 , Article 9 |
First Instance Judgment
| Verdict | Before we conclude on public interest litigation, we are fortified by the findings of the Supreme Court of India in Petition No.663 of 2004 B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India & Anr where on the issue of costs in public interest litigation the Supreme Court held that:
“……the Writ Petition is filed as a public interest litigation in the wake of the removal of the governors of States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa on 02/07/2004 by the President of India on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers….” and did not accordingly order for costs prayed. (See 2nd and last paragraphs of the above Judgment).
Moreover, in Air 1982 SC 149, S. P. Gupta vs. President of India and Others on 30 December, 1981, the Petitioner challenged the Constitutional validity of the order transferring the Chief Justice K. B. N. Singh. The Court found that the matter was of public interest litigation and ordered that “there would be no order as to costs in both the groups of Writ Petition” (See Paragraph 118 of the Judgment).
It follows from the above two cases that the Public was affected by the removal of Governors and the transfer of Judge K. B. N. Singh.
Similarly, the removal of the Speaker, the main issue in the consolidated References herein was a matter of in the nature of public interest litigation. In any event, and the withdrawal of the signatures by some members of EALA which rendered the same References moot cannot be attributed to the Applicants. Neither should they be penalized for changed circumstance that did not have their direct input.
Turning back to the issue of costs and in the above context, according to Rule 111(1), costs shall follow the event unless the Court orders otherwise for good reasons. In these circumstances, the event, namely, the withdrawal of the consolidated References was occasioned by the Applicants, but, as said elsewhere above, it was also caused the actions of some Members of EALA who were initially signatories to the Petition seeking the removal of the Speaker.
Sub-Rule 2 of the 111 provides that, any Party which incurs costs improperly or without reasonable cause would be reimbursed by the opposite Party. In applying that sub-Rule, the main issue is whether the Consolidated References were properly and with reasonable cause placed before this Court.
It is our firm view in answer to that issue that the Applicants pursued a reasonable cause in filing their References. Consequently, the Applicants cannot be faulted for the withdrawal in the changed circumstances.
In light of all the above reasons, we now make the following orders:
a) References Nos.3 & 5 of 2014 are hereby marked as “withdrawn by consent of the Parties”; and
b) Each Party shall bear its own costs.
It is so ordered. |
| PDF document | Download the decision as PDF
|
| Date delivered | August 15, 2014 |
| Quorum | |
Appeal Judgment
| Verdict | |
| PDF document | |
| Date delivered | |
| Quorum | |
