Turyagenda v Attorney General (Civil Suit 488 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 43 (30 November 1992)

Full Case Text

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

The How. M. Justice F. M. Enganda-Atlende

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

## CIVIL SUIT NO.438 OF 1992

VERSUS

**::::::::::::::::::** PLAINTIFF JORAM THRYAGENDA KAZUNGUZA

ATTORNEY GENERAL **DEFENDANT** BEFORE: The Honourable Mrs. Justice M. Kireju R U L I N G

When this suit came up for hearing Mr. Muhimbura learned counsel for the defendant, the Attorncy General raised a preliminary objection. Counsel submitted that the matter before court was a subject of inquiry by the office of Inspector General of Government (IGG) and cannot therefore be entertained by this court. Counsel referred me to $S.7(1)(c)(v)$ of the Inspector General of Government Statute 2/1988 which gives the IGG the duty of eliminating and fostering the elimination of corruption and abuse of public office among other duties. In the present case counsel contended that the IGG suspects that the contract in issue was corruptly carried out and thats why he is investigating the matter and the investigations have not yet been completed. Under paragraph 9 of the plaint the plaintiff admits that documents were impounded by the IGG's office in August 1991 and have never been released: the fact that He submitted that / the matter was before the IGG was not in dispute. Counsel referred court to $S.14$ of the Statute, in support of his argument that since the matter was before the IGG, it was prematurely before this court. Counsel contended that the investigations being carried out by the IGG were in public interest and

$\frac{1}{2}$

were not supposed to prejudice the plaintiff's case. That he was informed that investigations will be out soon and that it was not necessary to persue the matter in court. He submitted that a judgement in this case would pre-empt the investigations of the IGG and as a result the purpose of IGG's office will be defeated. Counsel prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

$\overline{2}$

Mr. Kalule-Luyombo learned counsel for the plaintiff in reply submitted that the case was properly before court. He contended that the suit was against the Attorney General in his representative capacity, representing the institutions which were supplied with food stuff and that the real issue hefore court was the price of the food supplied. Counsel submitted that the fact that IGG is mentioned in. paragraph 9 of the plaint does not mean, that his investigations are being challanged, counsel contended that S. 14 of the IGG's Statute talks about IGG's investigations as not being subject to challange in any court of law, but counsel argued that the case before court was not challanging the IGG's investigations and therefore the cited section was not applicable.

Counsel further submitted that investigations by the IGG have taken more that 15 months. Counsel said that court cannot be sure whether investigations will/carried out as this was just a statement from the bar. Counsel submitted that if there were investigations at all they were prejudicing his client because of the inordinate delay which has already been caused to his client and is likely to continue. Counsel concluded by saying that the suit was properly before court and should proceed to trial.

$...13$

After listening carefully to the submissions by both counsel I now turn to the lav/ in question. I agree that one of the functions of. the'IuG under S. 7 (1) (c ) (v ) of the IGG's Statute.,is \*•-

"to receive and investigate complaints of alleged or suspected corrupt practices and injustices and make recommendations for appropriate action thereon". S. 1 4 on which this objection is based is as follows "No proceedings, investigations or inquireis by the office of the Inspector General shall be held null and void by reason only of an informality or irregularity in the procedure, and except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction no such proceedings, investigations or inquiries shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or

called in question jn court of lav/".

The IGG's Statute was not intended in anyway to be in conflict with judicial powers given to courts. S.12(2) provides that the Inspector General shall not have power to question or review among others - a. .decision of any court of law or of any judicial officer in the exercise of his judicial functions or any matter which is sub-judice. In my opinion this section gives courts power to continue with its work whether the matter is being investigated by the IGG or not likewise the courts under\* Sil4 are not allowed to challenge any investigations by the IGG except on ground of lack of jurisdiction. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint the plaintiff is complaining about the impounding of his documents by the IGG, the delay in releasing the said documents and the expenses incurred as

.... A

a result. As long as the two paragraphs are challanging the IGG's investigations, they cannot be entertained by the court as they contravene S.14 of the IGG's Statute. If the plaintiff has any complaints they should be against the Attorney General, in any case the fact that the documents had been taken for investigations by the IGG did not stop the plaintiff from filing this action. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the phaint are accordingly struckout and the plaintiff is free to amend his plaint if he so wishes. Section 14 was referred to out of context. It is intended to protect the IGG's investigations from court interference but it is not supposed to act as a bar to court proceedings touching the same matter. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled and costs will be in the cause.

> M. KIREJU $J \cup D \cup E.$ $30/11/92$ .

$16/11/92$ 2.30 p.m. Mr. Kalule - Luyombo for the plaintiff Mr. Muhimbura for the defendant Nalongo Interpreter. Ruling read before the above

$\cdots,$

M. KIREJU J U D G E $30/11/92$