published a Bill entitled "The Constituent Assembly Bill, 1992 meant to regulate elections to, and
the operation of the Constituent Assembly. Clause 4 (3) of the Bill established the Constituent
Assembly (Election Rules).
Under Section 11(1) of the said rules it is provided that "Elections for delegates shall be non -
partisan and every candidate for election as a delegate within an electoral area shall stand and be
voted for by voters upon personal merit and Section 11(2) of the rules & provides that "Any
person who uses or attempts to use any Political Party... as a basis for such a person's candidature
or election as a delegate commits an offence."
Section 12(1) of the Rules also provides that "For each electoral area the Returning Office shall
prepare and conduct a programme to be known as can "dates meetings" and Section 12(10) of the
rules provides that public rallies and any form of public demonstration in support of or against,
any candidate shall not be permitted and any person who organizes or participates in any such
rally or demonstration commits an offence.
The applicants will invoke the provisions of Article 22( 1) of the Constitution of the Republic of
Uganda in that the implementation of sections 11(1), 11(2), 12(1) and 12(10) schedule III of the
Constituent Assembly Bill 1992 is likely to contravene their rights under Articles 8(2)(b), 18(1)
and 20(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and will seek a declaratory order that the
said sections of the said schedule are unconstitutional. "
The present application seeks declaratory orders, inter alia, to the effect that the implementation
of the Constituent Assembly (Election Rules); Rules l1(a), 11(2), 12(1) and 12(10) is likely to
contravene the applicants right as provided under Articles 8(2)(b), 17( 1), 18(1) and 20( 1) of the
Constitution. The substance of the rules set out in the schedule to the Constituent Assembly Bill
is the same as the Constituent Assembly Election Rules attached to the Statute.
The question before me is whether the notice referred to above amounts to a notice of the
subsequent application. Put differently is the cause of the action set out in the Statutory Notice the
same as the one set out in the application now before this Court.
Before I resolve the said issue let me start by considering the objects of a notice under Section 1
of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and what must constitute a
valid notice. Asthana J, in the case of Rwakosoro and 5 Ors -vs- The Attorney General [1982]
HCB 40, opined that the period of 60 days prescribed under the Act is intended for the purpose
that the Government may investigate the claim and if possible settle it out of Court.
In the Indian case of Rajabai -vs- State AIR [1973] BOM 61, the court considered the object of a
notice under section 8 of the Civil Procedure Code which has been said to be in pari materia as
Section 1 of Act 20 of 1969. The Court stated:
... in Chandulal-vs- Government of the province of Bombay AIR 1943 BOM. 138 a division
bench of this court had considered the object of giving notice. Beaumont CJ delivering the
Judgment of the Division Bench observed as follows:
"The cause of action which is to be stated in the notice, is the bundle of facts which go to make