up the right in respect of which the plaintiff proposes to sue and it is obvious that before the suit
can be brought, it may be that the bundle of facts will be added to or subtracted from and I do not
myself think that the notice is invalidated because it refers to a possible additional claim,
consequential upon the cause of action specified therein and states that if such additional claim
arises, the plaintiff will sue also in respect of it.
If therefore a consequential claim arises as stated in the notice and the suit is filed after the
consequential claim materialises although the same had not materialised at the date of the notice,
the notice does not become invalid. The learned judges also observed in regard to the object of
section 80 as follows:
"The object of Section 80 is to give the Secretary of State for India an opportunity of settling the
claim, if so advised, without litigation, or, to enable him to have an opportunity to investigate the
alleged cause of complaint and to make amends; if he thought fit, before he was impleaded in the
suit."
Similar are the observations of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Dutt -vs – East
Punjab Province AIR 1958 Puni.: 351. It observed as follows:
"The object is sufficiently satisfied if the notice informs the defendant generally of the nature of
the suit intended to be filed and the relief sought to be claimed."
As can be gathered from the above cases, the object of a notice under Section 1 of Act 20 of 1969
is to give an opportunity to Government to investigate the claim intended to be filed against it and
if possible settle it out of court. The notice should therefore contain the facts giving rise to the
plaintiffs intended claim against government. The facts given in the notice should establish
generally the rights of the intending plaintiff in relation to which he wishes to bring a suit against
government. There are instances where the acts complained of occurred in one single transaction
which was completed. There may be instances where the acts complained of had not occurred but
were in process and would involve the happening of several other matters. In such a case an
intending plaintiff would still be entitled to give notice even before the process is completed as
was case in this matter.
The applicants issued a notice, which they served upon the Attorney General. It informed the
Attorney General that the implementation of Rules 11(1), 11(2), 12(1) and 12(10) schedule III of
the Constituent Assembly Bill 1992 was likely to contravene the applicants rights under Articles
8(2)(b), 18(1) and 20(1) of the Constitution of Uganda. Secondly, the applicants informed the
Attorney General that they will seek a declaratory order that the said schedule is unconstitutional.
The applicants thus brought to the attention of the Attorney General their rights which they
perceive to be threatened by the legislative process which was to culminate in the enactment of
the Bill into a Statute and the implementation of the Statute itself. The applicants notified the
Attorney General of the relief, which they intended to seek.
In the present application, the applicants complain that their fundamental rights and freedoms as
provided by Article 8(1)(b), 17(1), 18(1) and 20(1) are threatened by the Election Rules attached
to the Constituent Assembly Statute. The Rules complained of are the same rules as are found in
the Bill and the notice served upon the Attorney General.
In my view, the Attorney General was informed in the notice served upon him of the facts
constituting the present application. The mere fact that at the time there was a Constituent