Assembly Bill and now the Bill has been enacted into a Statute does not change the cause of
action at all. The rights alleged to have been or likely to be threatened or infringed upon by the
implementation of the Bill as stated in the applicants notice are the same rights complained of in
the present application. There is therefore no change of cause of action as argued by Mr.
Tumwesige.
I do hold therefore, that the Statutory Notice dated 25 th November 1992 served by the applicants
upon the Attorney General was good and valid notice which satisfied the objects of a notice under
Section] of Act 20 of ]969 in relation to the present application. In spite of this, I do not think that
such a notice was at all necessary in the present proceedings.
In my view, I wish to state that in action founded on Article 22 of the Constitution, there is no
need at all for the Applicant to serve a notice upon the Attorney General under Section 1 of Act
20 of 1969 because the jurisdiction granted to the High Court under Article 22 of the Constitution
is exclusive. Article 22 states:
"1. Subject to the provisions of clause (5) of this Article if any person alleges that any of
the provisions of Article 8 to 20 inclusive has been is being or is likely to be contravened
in relation to him, the, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same
matter that is lawfully available, that person may apply to High Court for redress.- The High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application
made by person in pursuance of clause (1) of this Article, and may make such orders
issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose
of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any provisions of the said Articles 8 to 20
inclusive to the protection of which the person is entitled.
Provided that the High Court shall not exercise its powers under this clause if it is
satisfied that adequate means of redress for the contravention alleged are or have been
available to the person concerned under any other law. - .................
4 ...................... - Parliament may make provision, or may authorise the making of provision with respect
to the practice and procedure of any Court for the purpose of this Article and may confer
upon that Court such powers, or may authorise the conferment thereon of such powers, in
addition to those conferred by this Article as may appear to be necessary or desirable for
the purpose of enabling that Court more effectively to exercise the jurisdiction conferred
upon it by this Article. "
The jurisdiction granted to this Court under Article 22 (1) is subject only to the provision of
Article 22(5) which provides for the enactment of law to provide the practice and procedure of a
court in relation to the jurisdiction granted by Article 22(1) of the constitution. As Mr.
Tumwesige conceded Act 20 of 1969 was not made in fulfillment of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution. In fact it does not purport to lay down the procedure and practice of this court in
relation to enforcement of the fundamental rights and freedoms. This is very clear from the
preamble to the Act which states:
"An act to provide for the giving notice before certain suits are instituted; for the limitation of