citizenship.

1.constitution and
1.constitution Art.9
2.birth art10/s.12 of UCICA Uganda citizenship and immigration Control Act
3.foundling /presumption art.11/S.13 UCICA
4.Registration art.12/ s.14 UCICA
5.naturalisation art 13/ S.16
6.Loss of citizenship art 14/s.17
7.Dual citizenship art 15 / s.19

Center for Public Interest Litigation & Salima Namusobya v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 34 of
2010. , where the applicants called that art 12 and s.14 and its provisions should be read separately and
it was held that the art should be read as awhole and refugees could only attain citizenship through
citizenship by naturalization as laid down in s.16 of the Uganda Citizenship Immigration and Control Act.

Komakech v. Otto & Anor, Election Petition No. 6 of 2016, High Court of Uganda. and the issues in question was
with one with dual citizenship can stand for the position of Member of parliament as per Art 80(1)b and
it was held that holding another citizenship as per Art 15 does not mean losing the liable there some one
was liable to stand for citizenship. and also similar to Bahinduka V Rwemulikyo Election Petition no.3 of
2006.

Oyee & 2 Ors v. Zubeida, Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2012, High Court of Uganda. Issues were about land and it was
staed when proving Art 10(a), one has to show that he belongs to the indigenous communities by feb
1926 and in this case the defendant was a bari which is not a community and the parents are not
members of the indigenous communities.

miguna case (Ciizenship by birth cannot be lost.)

definition of refugee . Act 21 of 2006

‘’Owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reason to race, religion , nationality, membership
of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or
owing to such fear is unwilling to avail himself of protection of the country of his former habitual
 resident as search of a place.

Rule of Law.

Uganda Law Society v Attorney General . Constitution Petition No.18 of 2005. related to
James Katabazi and 21 others v secretary general of East Africa Community and Dr.
Kiiza Besigye and 2 others v attorney general.

judicial independence

Facts concern Kizza Besigye and others, charged with terrorism and upon being granted bail,
during the process of papers, the court was sorrunded by the Anti terrorism Urban hit
squad which disrupted , and this was not respect of the judicial Independence.

Human rights/ art 27 right to property

Ostraco Ltd v Attorney General HCCS CVCS 1380 of 1986.

Property of that belonged to the plantiff at Mbuya and it was taken over by the ministry
of information, it was during the system when the government was immune , but in
Ostraco , we saw the law shift as Enganda Ntende stated that;
‘’if government is in wrong occupation of property , substantive
justice demand that it be ordered to vacate ‘’

A holding which after years was still upheld by Mpaji Bahigeine JA as he noted that
‘’since the 1995 constitution , the rights and powers and immunities of the state are not
immutable anymore .Art 20(2) enjoins everybody including Government agencies to
protect and respect government individuals rights’’

Representative government
Erias Lukwago v Attorney General and 3 others Misc Ac 94 of 2014.

Where the mayor was wrongfully evicted from the office

Basic structure doctrine
Amendent defined in the case of Semwogererevtraad nook

founded operation in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of
Kerala and Anr (1973) 4 SCC 225), which brought out the concept that the constitution
has basic features which parliament cannot amend and if so , this was re-writing a new
constitution which parliament has no power to do , but this belongs to the people . Art
2(2).

Whether or not a provision amounts to basic structure in the constitution varies from one country
to another basing on history , political challenges , vision ,national objectives and
directives.

In Yaakou v Chairman of the central elections Committe for Sith Knest , court observed
‘’There are fundamental principles that are so elementary a nature and so much
expression of law that precedes the constitution that the maker of the constitution
himself is bound by them. Other constitutional norms , which don’t occupy this rank
contradicts these rules can be void because conflict with them.

HOW IT HAS BEEN USED.

Minerva Mills and others v. Union of India 1980 SC 1789 . Where being applied by
the supreme court , to invalidated the provisions of s. 55 of the act which removed all
limitations on parliament In amendement of the constitution, as this power was was
used to destroy the constitution to do away with basic structures.

Njoya & Ors v. Attorney General & Ors, [2004] 1 EA 194 (HCK), and here court rejected that
parliament’s power to amend the constitution includes making changes that amount to
replacement.

It is not what is expressively written down in the constitution which is basic structure as in
Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature & Ors v The President of the
Republic of South Africa & Ors, 1995 10 BCLR 1289 (CC), where court points out
 that certain features in parliamentary democracy which are not spelt out in the
constitution but are inherent from the nature , design and power thus not liable for
constitutional amendent.

In enforcement however , it should be noted that , even though proper procedure has been
followed for these amendent , they can be sstruck down as in Premier Kwa Zulu –Nata
and President of South Africa , .