Ports Authority EACJ Reference No.1 of 2008, Carolyne Turyatemba & 4 Others Vs. Attorney General and Another, Constitutional Petition No.15 of 2006 and Kampala Bottlers vs. Damanico (U) Ltd Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.22 of 1992. 40. In conclusion, the Respondent invited the Court to adopt the authorities cited and apply them to the above case, and answer the Issue No.2 in the negative. DETERMINATION ON ISSUE NO.2 41. The question sends us back to the Principle of natural justice based on a fair hearing in any judicial proceeding. It follows that any party to a judicial proceeding has a fundamental right to be informed of a proceeding against him or her and to consider, challenge or contradict any evidence in that proceeding. 42. On 17th February,2015 when the Court heard this Reference, the Applicant highlighted his written submissions and conceded on that issue by saying:“Correct my Lords, but I had already put a rider in the beginning of that issue, one is irrelevant and diversionary.” 43. In his rejoinder, the Applicant clearly adopted the authority of Carolyn Turyatemba [supra] and averred that it favoured him. The relevant finding held by the Constitutional Court is that:“………. it is incompetent in respect of those reliefs, which if granted, would affect the interests of the third Parties in the suit lands, yet the third Parties are not Parties to this Petition.” Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 17