Constitutional Court decision in Joyce Nakacwa v Attorney General and Others;
Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2001 [2020] UGCC1” in which the Court made the
following highly pertinent and perceptive statements:
“In view of the specified time limitation on other jurisdictions the Court is not in a
position to determine what a reasonable period would be for an applicant to file a
constitutional application to enforce his or her violated fundamental rights. I do
not wish to give a specific time frame but in my mind there can be no justification
for the Petitioner`s delay for 24 years. A person whose constitutional rights have
been infringed should have some zeal and motivation to enforce his or her rights.
In litigation of any kind, time is essential as evidence may be lost or destroyed
and that is possibly the wisdom of time limitation in filing cases. I have carefully
considered the case of DOMINIC ARONY alluded to earlier in this judgment
where my learned colleagues in a bench of three Judges awarded damages to
the Applicant who came to Court to enforce his fundamental rights after about 20
years. With great respect, I wish to depart from their finding concerning limitation.
In my view, a party who wishes to enforce his rights in court must do so within a
reasonable time and must be prompt. In addition it would be in the interest of
good public administration to adjudicate finally in such matters at the earliest time
possible. The claim before me transcends nearly six (6) Parliaments and two
political regimes or administrations. Granted that one of the possible reasons for
not coming to court was fear of the then regime, surely such grave violations as
alleged ought to have been instituted so as to test the regime, the courts and the
pretence and the commitment of the then regime to adherence to democratic
principles. In each phase of history it is a few brave people who have taken
change to higher heights.
The timid souls have had no place.
Surely the
applicants were soldiers and made of sterner stuff! If they sat on their rights for
24 years how would ordinary folks fair”? [ emphasis added]
58. Both justice and equity abhor a claimant’s indolence or sloth. Stale claims prejudice
and negatively impact the efficacy and efficiency of the administration of justice. The
20