POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN LEGAL

RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT PRACTICE

FIRM C3
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1...................................................................................................................................................0
THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND CIVIL LITIGATION....................................0
General Introduction..............................................................................................................................0
Background to the Study........................................................................................................................1
The Evolution and Growth of PIL in Uganda.......................................................................................2
A survey of the post-1995 PIL jurisprudence:.....................................................................................4
Statement of the Problem......................................................................................................................5
Objectives of the Study...........................................................................................................................6
Research Questions................................................................................................................................6
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................................................7
Methodology...........................................................................................................................................8
Research Scope:......................................................................................................................................8
Limitations of the Study........................................................................................................................10
Literature Review..................................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO..........................................................................................................................................15
NON-LEGAL FACTORS AFFECTING CIVIL AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION...........................................15
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................15
Players Involved....................................................................................................................................15
Source of Funding.................................................................................................................................16
Socioeconomic Status...........................................................................................................................17
Public Perception..................................................................................................................................18
Political Factors.....................................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER 3.................................................................................................................................................21
ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF LAWS BOTH DOMESTIC AND EAST AFRICA THAT ENFORCES
CIVIL AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.................................................................................................21
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................21
Domestic Legal Framework..................................................................................................................21
Public Interest Litigation under the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and
Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2019................................................................................23
The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019........................................................................................24
 The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community of 1995 as amended as 20 th August
2007.......................................................................................................................................................24
Constitution of Republic of Uganda 1995 of as amended....................................................................25
CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................................27
CHALLENGES FACED IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND IN CIVIL LITIGATION...................................27
Challenges Faced in Public Interest Litigation......................................................................................27
Challenges Faced in Pursuance of Civil Litigation.................................................................................33
CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................................................36
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION..............................................................................36
FINDINGS...............................................................................................................................................36
RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................42
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................47
 RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT

TOPIC: CIVIL LITIGATION AND PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION; EXPLORING THEIR RELATIONSHIP AND
IMPLICATIONS IN UGANDA

CHAPTER 1

THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND

CIVIL LITIGATION
General Introduction
The legal climate in Uganda is indeed becoming increasingly chilly towards public
interest litigation (PIL) compared to Civil Litigation which is, on the other hand,
experiencing a rapid growth spout, and yet, both forms of litigation are meant to be
equally of great importance on the grand scale of justice. We believe that the major
cause of the decline in the PIL sector and the rapid growth in Civil Litigation is
fundamentally due to the vast difference in the procedural and execution laws and
systems currently governing the two sectors. PIL is aimed at providing justice for
wrongs or policies affecting the public, vast communities, a major section of the public,
or disenfranchised minorities (Nampewo, 2013), who may not or cannot seek justice for
themselves individually. Common cases of this nature generally focus on the freedoms
of expression, association, and participation, but also extend to the rights of discrete
groups such as women, and minorities (social and sexual), and on group or collective
rights (e.g. the right to a healthy environment).1

1
Mtikila v Attorney General [H.C.C.S No. 5 of 1993]
Civil litigation, on the other hand, focuses on resolving disputes of a personal nature
between private persons.

Understanding the relationship between civil and public interest litigation, its dynamics,
and implications on Uganda’s judicial landscape, therefore, is crucial for a
comprehensive legal landscape and ensuring sustainability and development for the
years to come.

Background to the Study

Like many other jurisdictions, Uganda has a legal system that accommodates civil and
public interest litigation. While civil litigation addresses private disputes, public interest
litigation seeks to address matters of public concern. The coexistence of these two
forms of litigation raises questions about their relationship and potential implications for
the legal system and society.

Civil litigation is a term that applies to any legal dispute where two or more parties are
seeking monetary damages or specific performance and does not include criminal
accusations. Some cases go to trial in which a judge will determine the outcome, but not
all will. There are many different types of civil litigation.2

In the broadest sense, civil litigation is any legal proceeding that does not involve
criminal charges or penalties.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the other hand, is born out of that intrinsic and
enduring human quality of being good to others, most especially to the weak,
unfortunate and those persons bewildered by circumstances. It can be seen to be
evidently embossed on the collective consciousness of all world peoples and major
civilizations throughout history. In Africa, this concept finds its expression in the Ubuntu
or Obuntu philosophy which means goodness, love, compassion and consideration for
others.

2
https://www.bryantstratton.edu/blog/2017/august/what-is-civil-litgation#:~:text=Civil%20litigation%20is%20a
%20term,does%20not%20include%20criminal%20accusations.
Thus, the term Public Interest Litigation describes legal actions brought to protect or
enforce rights enjoyed by members of the public or large parts of it. It is litigation
instituted for the benefit of the public who may be aware of the rights but lack financial
ability to enforce those rights as well as for those who may not be aware at all about
their infringed rights.3

The Evolution and Growth of PIL in Uganda

The history of PIL in Uganda has been a turbulent one right from the moment Uganda
gained its independence on October 9, 1962. This is mostly accredited to the efforts
made of many of the lawyers and activists back then, to use PIL to obtain political,
social and economic power.

The earliest, most prominent case in this regard was the case of Uganda versus
Commissioner of Prisons, ex parte Matovu.4The facts of the case were that there
was a political crisis in Uganda which culminated into the attack by Prime Minister Dr.
Apollo Milton Obote on the Kabaka5 of Buganda Edward Muteesa’s palace following
constitutional disagreements6. In the wake of this attack, a session of Buganda’s
parliament was summoned at Mengo, that kingdom’s administrative seat, to discuss the
attack and the personal circumstances of the now exiled Kabaka. In that heated
session, the decision was made to expel the central government from Buganda soil.
Michael Matovu was singled out by government as having been instrumental in and one
of the grand-architects of the ill-fated motion. As it turned out, he was arrested and
detained — first, in Masindi prison and, subsequently, in Luzira maximum security
prison under the provisions of the Deportation Ordinance. As luck would have it, the
Deportation Ordinance — a law under which Matovu had been detained and whose
purport and effect was to deport Ugandan citizens in any area of the country, was soon
declared unconstitutional and Matovu was released from prison as a result.7

3
Rev Mtikila v A.G of Tanzania HCCS No.51 of 1993 (TZ)
4
Uganda v. Commissioner of Prisons, ex parte Matovu [1966] EA 514.
5
King. He was also the Executive President of Uganda under the 1962 Constitution upon which the stated
disagreements were based.
6
For a penetrative insight of this crisis, see Pharez M. Mutibwa, A History of Uganda: The First 100 Years (Fountain,
2016) pp. 214-222.
7
See Oloka supra.
However, as soon as he took his first steps of freedom from Luzira, he was arrested and
re detained under new emergency regulations which are alleged to have been
exclusively tailor –made for him and a few others political enemies at the time.
Subsequently, he filed, through his advocate habeas corpus proceedings to regain his
freedom. However, as it turned out, his application involved some convoluted
constitutional questions which the presiding judge Jeffreys Jones, J relied on to refer
his case to a three-member bench of the court since he did not have jurisdiction to
entertain a case involving interpreting the constitution. The issues in question regarded
the procedural correctness of proceedings before court, the constitutionality of Matovu’s
detention under emergency powers and, most importantly, the validity of the 1966
constitution under which the emergency powers used to detain Matovu had been made.
Court ultimately found for the validity of “pigeonhole” constitution and government. It
reasoned that: “any decision by the judiciary as to the legality of the government would
be far reaching, disastrous and wrong because the question was a political one to be
resolved by the executive and legislature which are accountable to the Constitution but
a decision on the validity of the Constitution was distinguishable and within Courts
competence”8.

Why, therefore, is the Matovu case important in Uganda’s PIL tradition? First, it
introduced into Ugandan legal jurisprudence the PQD variously called the “judicial
restraint doctrine” which has come to haunt the practice of PIL in Uganda as the
subsequent analysis will show, but also, on another note, it introduced into the wider
judicial fabric the progressive concept of “jettisoning formalism to the winds”. As above-
stated, the case was replete with procedural hitches including failure to file a notice of
motion as the rules prescribed, the failure to name a proper respondent and defective
affidavits. However, instead of striking out Matovu’s claim on the basis of those errors
which formed the objections of the learned Attorney General, court adopted a
progressive stance which would influence subsequent courts in rooting for human rights
and substance rather than formalisms which they did not hesitate to jettison to the wind.

8
Ex parte Matovu, ibid
In the 1970s and 1980s, Uganda spiraled into political anarchy and further constitutional
upheaval. In 1971, Field Marshal Idi Amin Alemi Dada overthrew the government of his
boss Dr. Obote and began his signature reign by decrees. For reasons quite obvious,
PIL was rendered comatose. Marshal Amin was overthrown in 1979 by militant
Ugandan groups under the umbrella of the Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF)
and the Tanzanian Peoples Defense Forces of President Julius Kambarage Nyerere.
The new UNLF leadership of Prof. Yusuf Kironde Lule was in turn overthrown and
replaced by Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa, QC who was also in turn overthrown and
replaced by a Military Commission which in turn organized the 1980 presidential
elections. Dr. Milton Obote, having returned from exile, took part in and won the much-
contested elections. In this spate of violence and dire constitutional turbulence, Dr.
Obote was once more overthrown by Brig. Bazilio Olara Okello and Gen. Tito Okello
Lutwa. Meanwhile Yoweri Museveni of the National Resistance Army (NRA), having
contested the fairness and integrity of the stated 1980 presidential elections, opted to go
to the bush and fought a protracted war against the government which he won in
January, 1986 when his troops captured Kampala. With this, the NRA began the
process of writing a new constitution9.

It was this new (1995) constitution that would herald an altogether new era of PIL in
Uganda.

A survey of the post-1995 PIL jurisprudence:

The first decade

A survey of PIL in this period reveals two trends. First, haunted by ghosts of the past—
and, perhaps wary of the new political dispensation and; as well, unaccustomed to the
new progressive constitutional order, courts dismissed quite a number of important PIL
claims on the several procedural technicalities. Yet Article 126(2) (e) of the new
constitution exhorted them to do otherwise10. Claims were dismissed on the basis that
petitioners did not have locus standi or the legal standing to commence the specific
claims, that suits were time-barred, that there was no statutory notice served on
9
For a penetrative insight of this crisis, see Pharez M. Mutibwa, A History of Uganda: The First 100 Years (Fountain,
2016) pp. 214-222.
10
The Constitution of The Republic Of Uganda, of 1995, as amended.
government prior to instituting an action as the rules required, that particular suits did
not disclose causes of action, that pleadings were defective, that wrong respondents
had been sued, that individual litigants failed to comply with the rules for instituting
representative claims, that reliefs had been sought from wrong courts, and most
notoriously, because there were no rules to enforce human rights. I will return to this
shortly.

The second trend, especially in later years, entailed courts— like those in India after
Indira, departing from their rigorous construction of procedural rules to a more
accommodating and rights-based approach. Of course, ghosts of the past, as have
been described above, still lurked in judicial chambers in quite a number of cases which
saw the re-emergence of the PQD. These, though, were quite thin and spread out and
were those in which the executive invested high political premiums. As was typical in
these types of cases, courts always opted for restraint, a testament to the fact that
Matovu’s ghost was still alive the new dispensation.

Throughout this research, we shall examine and compare procedural vis a vis the bold
and progressive rights approach together with locus standi against the overall outlook of
such aspects civil litigation to perhaps find a way to address the adverse effects of the
ghost of ex parte Matovu which still haunt the corridors of public interest litigation in
Uganda today.

Statement of the Problem

The coexistence of civil litigation and public interest litigation within the legal landscape
of Uganda introduces complexities that have rendered PIL less popular than civil lit.
Whereas they are all avenues for seeking legal redress for civil wrongs with the help of
courts, the principles that govern the two and the approaches to the two legal realms
are not uniform. The differences in judicial approaches and principles applied by the
court have created a divergent legal landscape which if not bridged shall continue to
render public interest litigation less popular. Therefore, need to understand and develop
a clear understanding of how Civil Litigation can co-exist harmoniously with public
interest litigation.

Objectives of the Study

1. General Objective: To examine the relationship between and implication of civil
litigation and public interest litigation in Uganda.

2. Specific Objectives

1. To investigate the nature and scope of Public Interest Litigation and Civil
Litigation

2. To examine the non-legal factors that influence Public Interest Litigation

and Civil Litigation

3. To analyse the legal framework governing Public Interest Litigation and

Civil Litigation

4. To discover the challenges faced in Public Interest Litigation and in Civil

Litigation

5. To make recommendations addressing the challenges faced in Public

Interest Litigation and in Civil Litigation

Research Questions
1. General Question: What is the relationship between civil litigation and public
interest litigation in Uganda?

2. Specific Questions

1. What is the nature and scope of Public Interest Litigation and Civil
Litigation?
 2. What are the non-legal factors influencing Public Interest Litigation and
Civil Litigation?

3. What is the legal framework governing Public Interest Litigation and Civil
Litigation?

4. What are the challenges being faced in Public Interest Ligation and in Civil
Litigation?

5. How can we address the challenges being faced in Public Interest

Litigation and in Civil Litigation?

Significance of the Study

This research is aimed at examining how civil litigation (individual disputes) and public
interest litigation (cases affecting broader societal interests) coexist in Uganda's legal
system. It shall investigate why public interest litigation is not as popular as civil
litigation. The study will focus on issues such as unclear legal boundaries, conflicting
laws, differing court approaches, long legal procedures, of the two legal realms, and
how these affect people’s abilities to access fair justice.

It holds significant value by shedding light on the coexistence of civil and public interest
litigation in Uganda’s legal system. By investigating why public interest litigation lacks
popularity compared to civil litigation, this study aims to pave the way for a fairer and
more accessible justice system. Its findings will not only improve legal understanding
but also aid in legal formulation enabling legal practitioners, policy makers, and scholars
to navigate the challenges effectively. Ultimately, this research aims to contribute
valuable insights that can shape a more equitable legal framework, fostering better
access to justice for all Ugandans.

Furthermore, this research is significant in providing insights into the complex

relationship between civil and public interest litigation in Uganda. The findings will
contribute to legal scholarship, guide legal practitioners in navigating such cases, and
inform policymakers on potential areas for legal reform to enhance justice. We hope that
the findings and recommendations shall enable the policymakers and law makers to
adjust the position of the two realms.

Methodology
This research will employ a completely of doctrinal methods of research comprised
mainly of conducting a comprehensive study of existing legal literature, statutes,
relevant statistical reports, journals, case law, newspapers, reports and any other
material related to civil and public interest litigation in Uganda which can provide more
insight into our area of study.

Research Scope:
1. Content scope
a. Jurisdictional Boundaries: The traditional demarcation between civil
litigation and public interest litigation is becoming increasingly
ambiguous. Instances where private disputes bear implications for
public interest, and vice versa, present challenges in clearly defining
the jurisdictional boundaries of each form of litigation.

b. Inconsistencies in Judicial Approach: As civil and public interest

litigations intersect, the potential for conflicting legal principles
emerges. Balancing the protection of individual rights inherent in civil
cases with the broader societal interests underpinning public interest
cases poses a conundrum for the legal system.

c. Conflicting Legal Principles: How Ugandan courts approach cases

involving both civil and public interest elements lacks uniformity. The
absence of clear guidelines or precedents for judges to navigate these
complex cases may result in inconsistencies in judgments and legal
interpretations.
 d. Protracted Legal Processes: The interplay between civil and public
interest litigation introduces intricacies that may contribute to
protracted legal processes. Delays in case resolution can compromise
the effectiveness of the legal system and hinder the timely
dispensation of justice.

e. Impact on Access to Justice: The challenges arising from the

coexistence of civil and public interest litigation can potentially impact
access to justice for litigants. Understanding how these challenges
affect the ability of individuals and public interest groups to seek and
obtain justice is crucial for the overall assessment of the legal system's
functionality.

2. Geographical scope of study

This research will mainly focus on a study of the status of civil litigation and Public
Interest Litigation in Uganda with a few considerations as to the state of PIL and Civil
Litigation for mostly inspirational purposes on how Uganda is fairing compared to its
international counterparts and how it can improve if necessary.

3. Time scope of study

This research will look at civil litigation and PIL between the years 1995 when the
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda was enacted, to the year 2023.

a. Research Duration

The duration of the research shall be twelve weeks, and the time shall be divided into
stages or phases of the study which shall range from the first phase, which is the
preparatory stages of the study, to the reporting stage of the study. Below is the time
allocation for the different stages of the study.

Phase 1: Preparatory stage (1 week)

Phase 2: Data collection (2 weeks)

Phase 3: Data analysis (2 weeks)

Phase 4: Reporting and Dissemination (2 weeks)

Limitations of the Study

This research was conducted within a very short period of time while also keeping up
with our school commitments thus; time management was a major challenge. Secondly,
we had limited access to information owing to the existence of scarce resources to
facilitate certain aspects of research as well as the scarcity of sources particularly on
Public Interest Litigation in existence.

Literature Review
The literature review will explore existing scholarship on civil and public interest litigation
globally and specifically in the Ugandan context. It will highlight key theories, landmark
cases, and trends that have shaped these litigations.

1. Literature review on the nature and scope of Public Interest Litigation and Civil
Litigation

Carol Harlow in his article, 'Public Law and Popular Justice'11, examines the
differences between public interest litigation and civil litigation, with a particular focus on
their implications for popular justice.

Harlow begins by outlining the main characteristics of public interest litigation, which is
driven by a collective interest rather than individual grievances. Public interest litigation
11
Carol Harlow, 'Public Law and Popular Justice' (2002)
primarily focuses on challenging government actions or policies that have broader
societal implications. In contrast, civil litigation centres around individual disputes and
seeks to enforce private rights in areas such as contracts, torts, and property.

According to Harlow, public interest litigation serves as a powerful tool for addressing
systemic issues and promoting social justice by stating that, bringing public interest
cases to court, it enables these groups to draw attention to broader issues of public
concern and effect change at a policy level.

In contrast, civil litigation is criticized for being primarily concerned with private interests
and narrow legal interpretations. Harlow argues that civil litigation tends to focus on
individual remedies rather than addressing underlying social problems. While civil
litigation plays a crucial role in protecting individual rights and resolving disputes, it may
not be as well-suited to challenging systemic injustices or shaping public policy.

Harlow’s research provides a general overview of the nature of PIL and civil litigation.
Our research on the other hand focuses on Uganda in particular and critically analyses
the unique challenges faced in its PIL and Civil Litigation and how they can be
addressed.

2. Literature review on the non-legal factors that influence Public Interest

Litigation and Civil Litigation

Harlow's article provides valuable insights into the contrasting nature and goals of public
interest litigation and civil litigation. The author effectively highlights the potential of
public interest litigation to promote popular justice and address societal issues. By
challenging government actions or policies, public interest litigation allows for more
significant changes that benefit society as a whole.

The critique of civil litigation as mainly concerned with private interests is also well-
founded. While civil litigation is vital for resolving individual disputes, it may not be as
effective in addressing the broader systemic issues that public interest litigation targets
stating that it is however important to recognize the complementary nature of these two
forms of litigation. Civil litigation provides a means to enforce individual rights, which
can be a stepping stone towards broader societal reform.

Harlow’s analysis therefore on the non-legal aspects affecting PIL and Civil Litigation, is
limited to government policies and actions in society. Our research, however, looks
beyond the non-legal government initiatives and looks at other factors such as culture,
the media, and the role played in influencing the general public perspective, among
others.

3. Revie of the legal framework governing Public Interest Litigation and Civil
Litigation

David Feldman in his article titled Public Interest Litigation and Constitutional
Theory in Comparative Perspective12, primarily focuses on the way prevailing ideas of
democracy and constitutionalism shape (and are, in turn, themselves reshaped by) the
capacity of private citizens to use the forms, procedures, and substance of public law,
and particularly constitutional law, to advance public political aims. He noted that the
judges, in approaching public interest litigation, have to develop a view of the
Constitution and its underlying principles.

In his article, he sought to analyze the various constitutional frameworks and

procedures on public interest litigation for the different jurisdictions and identify a co-
relationship with the 1995 constitution of Uganda on Public Interest Litigation. However,
over time, many developments have taken place in foreign jurisdictions as far as their
systems regarding public interest litigation are concerned, which developments were not
captured by David, and these need a thorough investigation to ascertain how Uganda
can cope with having these two legal realms. Therefore, this report shall further
investigate and develop the new trends in public litigation in foreign jurisdictions, and
how Uganda can borrow a leaf in developing our jurisprudence.

12
David Feldman; Public Interest Litigation and Constitutional Theory in Comparative Perspective
4. Review of the challenges faced in Public Interest Litigation and Civil Litigation

J. Oloka-Onyango in his book When Courts Do Politics: Public Interest Law and
Litigation in East Africa13 discusses how matters of public interest litigation cannot be
separated from politics. This in turn means that courts cannot separate themselves from
dealing with political matters and he states that in cases of public interest litigation
politics is never far away from the judges’ chambers. Consequently, it is not only the
parties immediately concerned with the petition who watch keenly for the gains and
losses that may result from a court ruling. Such matters will invariably become the
concern of the broader public. Because the issues in public interest litigation have
typically been the subject of intense social, cultural, or political contestation in other
arenas before they reached court, it is simply unrealistic to expect them to have been
shorn of these dynamics once they arrive at the Bench.

The critique of civil litigation by Harlow on this is that while civil litigation is vital for
resolving individual disputes, it may not be as effective in addressing the broader
systemic issues that public interest litigation targets.

Our research seeks to agree on points enunciated by both J. Oloka and Harlow and go
further to investigate how their narrative may have evolved over time to present the
state of affairs witnessed today in both types of litigation and how it can be practically
and effectively addressed.

5. A review of recommendations suggested to address the challenges faced in

Public Interest Litigation and in Civil Litigation

Phillip Karugaba in his paper14 enthusiastically demonstrates how important and

essential public interest litigation is by citing, among the many, a comparative holding by
Baguiti J where he stated that “public interest litigation is not the nature of adversary
litigation but a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make
13
J. Oloka-Onyango; When Courts Do Politics: Public Interest Law and Litigation in East Africa
14
Phillip Karugaba “Public Interest Litigation in Uganda, Practice and Procedure, Shipwrecks and Seamarks Report
on the proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Public Interest litigation for lawyers in East Africa, Green Watch
in Partnership with ELAW, ILEG, LEAT, 2005
basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the
community and to ensure them social and economic justice” 15 which is a signature of
our constitution. The author in this comparative reporting at the symposium, he did but
less to inculcate the stakeholders of the judicial system how best is public interest
litigation.

In our research, we wish to acknowledge and lean towards the afore quoted holding of
Baguiti J and make recommendations looking at the case of PIL in India for inspiration
to address the current prevalent challenges in PIL such as the unprofitability and losses
encountered due to our failure to promote, and strengthen this category of litigation to
be popular; and make its applicability loved, show that it is a solution to the economic
challenges undergone by the country.

Conclusion

This research proposal outlines a comprehensive plan to investigate the relationship

between civil and public interest litigation in Uganda. The study aims to contribute
valuable insights to legal scholarship and practice, fostering a better understanding of
the dynamics between these two forms of litigation within the Ugandan legal system.

15
Bundhua Mukit Morcha versus Union of India Air 1984 S.C
 CHAPTER TWO

NON-LEGAL FACTORS AFFECTING CIVIL AND PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION

Introduction
In Uganda, several non-legal factors influence litigants' preference for either civil
litigation or public interest litigation (PIL). These factors range from the involvement of
various players, sources of funding, socioeconomic status of litigants, and public
perception among others16. Hereunder is how each of these factors can impact litigants'
preferences:

Players Involved
In civil and Public interest litigations in Uganda, courts must be moved by a litigant or
petitioner. Ordinarily, courts would move themselves and call for a matter that is in the
public interest and determine the same. In some jurisdictions like India, a court can call
for a dispute that is in the interest of the public and have it determined, however, this is
still a myth in Uganda17.

Players in Civil Litigation: In Uganda, the primary players in civil litigation are typically
the parties directly involved in the dispute, such as individuals, companies, or
organizations. These pursue their interests in the subject matter of the litigation and no
person can take on a suit on behalf of another unless legally authorized for example
through a power of attorney or a representative suit.

16
Samuels H. Public interest litigation and the civil society factor. Legal Studies. 2018;38(4):515-528.
doi:10.1017/lst.2018.9
17
For example, the issue of a public Interest case being first referred to the court was discussed in the case of
Uganda Journalists Safety Committee and Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1997) [1997]
UGCC 8 (15 December 1997)
Players in Public Interest Litigation (PIL): On the other hand, PIL generally involves a
broader range of players, including public interest organizations for example The Center
for Public Interest Litigation, advocacy groups, NGOs, and sometimes governmental
bodies. Some of these bodies include the Uganda Women Lawyers’ Association (FIDA),
The Civil Society Budget Advocacy, and Action for Development among others.
Litigants may choose civil litigation to protect their rights or interests. Whereas these
tend to pursue cases which on the face of things tend to be in the interest of the general
public, they only take cases that promote their interests and agenda 18. These
organizations often take up cases with wider societal implications beyond the interests
of the individual litigants. It is worth noting that most of these organizations thrive on
donor funds, and donors are driven by specific interests, sometimes the funds
themselves are conditioned on specific aspects. Therefore, it is by design that certain
organizations only pursue litigation in a given line of the law and not any other.

If this was not the case, we would have many publically litigated cases because this is
an increasingly developing and concerning area of litigation, however, because the
funds received are conditional, organizations cannot take on any dispute or litigation,
although it may be in the public interest.

Source of Funding
Civil Litigation: Civil Litigants often fund their legal representation and associated costs
privately. This funding model has however limited access to justice for individuals or
groups with limited financial resources. In many cases, the court will not allow layers to
pursue cases on behalf of litigants in the hope of benefiting from the proceeds of the
judgment. Generally, the Uganda court system is expensive, and therefore accessibility
and the choice of a dispute resolution mechanism shall be dependent on the availability
of finances to fund the same. These are not only in professional fees paid to lawyers but
also in other associated costs, which may or may not be realized at the end of the entire
court process19.
18
J. Oloka Onyango, Human Rights and Public Interest Litigation in East Africa: A Birds Eye View (47 Geo. Wash. Int'l
L. Rev. 763 (2015))
19
Kampala Associated Advocates, ‘Global Practice Guide Contributor; Law and Practice’ (Litigation 2024)
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL cases are often funded by public interest
organizations, NGOs, or international donors 20. This funding enables litigants to pursue
cases that advance broader societal interests, even if individual litigants lack the
financial means to do so independently. However, as discussed above, this funding is in
most cases conditional and hinged on a specific area of litigation. For example, in the
recently passed Anti-Homosexuality Act, some constitutional cases filed to challenge
the same by NGOs were funded by international donors, whose only interest was to
have the law revised. Other funders are only concerned about environmental concerns
and nothing more. Therefore, the interests of the funder normally determine whether
funds shall be availed to fund a given court action as a public action. This in return limits
the scope of action or activism of these entities.

Socioeconomic Status
Civil Litigation: Civil litigation is perceived to be and normally taken on by Litigants with
higher socioeconomic status due to their ability to afford legal representation and cover
associated costs. The talk about only the rich people accessing justice has not gone
unnoticed in the Ugandan legal civil justice system. This has resulted in disparities in
access to justice based on economic means and thus civil litigation is associated with a
certain level of economic status21.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL cases have been branded as cases for marginalized
or economically disadvantaged groups who cannot pursue court cases on their own.
This is because of the associated costs, and the affected groups of people. Sometimes,
an activity that affects the public good goes un-litigated because the people affected are
financially constrained to pursue the matter, and in some cases because they fear
litigating against the rich who in most cases are the trouble causers. Public Interest
litigation is often funded by public interest organizations on behalf of the general public,
including those who cannot afford the cost of hiring lawyers and those who cannot fund

20
Anis A Dani and Arjan De Haan, Inclusive States: Social Policy and Structural Inequalities (The World Bank, 1818 H
Street NW, 2008)
21
Malcom Langford, ‘The Impact of Public Interest litigation: The case for Socio-economic Rights’ (2022)
the entire litigation process. PIL has thus turned out to provide a mechanism for
addressing systemic injustices that affect disadvantaged communities.

Public Perception

In Uganda, civil litigation is perceived through various lenses, influenced by historical

context, legal frameworks, and societal perspectives. Generally, Ugandans have a
negative perception of the Ugandan justice system. The negative sentiments are
created by for example the time taken in litigation, the costs involved, and general
ignorance of the population about their rights22. For instance, in the report published by
HiiL Innovative Justice, it was indicated that only 65% of Ugandans are in a position to
obtain information concerning court systems, and among these 46% only get to know
about court processes from Local Council Courts, 37% get to know about such
information from Family Members, and 35% know about court processes from friends.
Only 62% of Ugandans search for problem resolution and among these, only 45%
sought to resolve their disputes through Local council courts, only 39% through
independently contacting other parties, and only 35% sought to resolve their disputes
from police. 35% of Ugandans did not search for any information concerning court
processes, where 32% of them did not think anything could be done, 17% the
information searched would not have helped, and 14% didn’t know what to do to receive
such information. From this report, it was evident that the most helpful source of
problem resolution for Ugandans is Local Council Courts with 19%, followed by
assistance from family members with 18%, and police with 13% access23.

Perception of Civil Litigation: Public perception of civil litigation varies depending on the
nature of the dispute and the parties involved. In some cases, civil litigation is viewed as
a means for individuals or companies to protect their rights or seek compensation for
22
Christopher Mbazira, Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism in Uganda: Improving the enforcement of
economic, social and cultural rights (Human Rights & Peace Center, Makerere University, 2009)
23
Hiil Innovating Justice, Justice Needs in Uganda (2016)
damages. Many Ugandans perceive civil litigation as a process for the rich. It is
common in Uganda for people to say “The court system is for the rich”. The population
has also lost trust in the lawyers, who would have represented them. They normally
say, “I rather lose less than invest my money and get nothing”. A few individuals will
take on civil litigation cases, and this is commonly in matters concerning land, contract
law, and or sale of goods and supply of services 24. It is very hard for a common
layperson to file a civil litigation case in the law of torts, whereas they have been filed,
they are fewer than would have been.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL cases are often perceived as addressing broader
societal issues and promoting the public good. Successful PIL cases have led to
positive social change and have garnered public support and media attention. However,
whereas Public Interest Litigation can be commenced by an individual, these have been
few and notable, the commonly known one being Male Hassan Mabirizi Kiwanuka 25, as
the public perceives it as the sole responsibility of Non-Government Organizations and
civil society organizations, and not an individual mandate or right.

The limited number of cases commenced by individuals in the form of public interest
litigation has been generally caused by the ignorance of individuals about their legal
rights. For instance, several areas in Uganda need to be litigated upon and their legality
determined but no one is available and willing to take on these. For example, the
increasing surge of potholes on roads, the poor work done on public roads, the lack and
absence of medicines in public hospitals, and the despairing state of public schools,
among others. These have gone unmitigated, yet essentially these are rights that are
supposed to be enjoyed by the general public and the government can legally be held
liable for the current state of affairs.

In Uganda, litigants may weigh these non-legal factors when deciding between civil and
public interest litigation. While civil litigation may be preferred for individual disputes or

24
LASPNET, ‘Access to Justice for the Poor, Marginalized and Vulnerable People of Uganda’ (Report on Poverty,
Vulnerability, Marginalization and Access to Justice in Uganda, 2025)
25
For instance, in the case of Mabirizi kiwanuka & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal, No. 02 of
2018)
rights enforcement, public interest litigation offers a platform for addressing systemic
issues and promoting social justice on a broader scale.

Political Factors
The political environment in Uganda has significantly impacted litigation preferences.
Litigants choose civil litigation or PIL based on the prevailing political dynamics,
including government policies, regulatory frameworks, and the level of political stability.

In most cases, civil litigation is between private persons, whereas Public interest
litigation has often been against the government, and or its agencies. Litigants are
hesitant to bring suits against the government even if they are for the public good, or
their private rights, simply because they believe that they cannot win against the
government since it has the greatest machinery26.

Most of the Public interest cases in Uganda have been against the government,
commonly in the areas of challenging legislation, environmental law, and sometimes on
infrastructural works that tend to touch and affect the rights of the general public 27.
Some of the Public interest litigation cases in Uganda against the government include
the challenge of the recently passed Anti-Homosexuality Act, the Data Protection and
Privacy (Amendment) Act, the Age Limit petition which sought to challenge the
constitutionality of the removal of age limit for the presidency, among others.

26
Mtendeweka Mhango, Separation of Powers and the Application of the Political Question Doctrine in Uganda
(African Journal of Legal Studies 6 (2013) 249–264)
27
Malcom Langford, ‘The Impact of Public Interest litigation: The case for Socio-economic Rights’ (2022)
 CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF LAWS BOTH

DOMESTIC AND EAST AFRICA THAT ENFORCES CIVIL AND
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Introduction
This chapter analyses the legal framework of laws both domestic and East African
which enforce Civil and Public Interest Litigation.

Domestic Legal Framework

Section 14(1) & (2) of judicature Act, cap13 provides that the High court have
unlimited original jurisdiction to apply written law, common law, Doctrine of Equity and
Customs or Usage.

Public interest litigation is provided for under Article 50(2) of the 1995 constitution of
the republic of Uganda as amended, provides that Any person or organisation may
bring an action against the violation of another person’s or group’s human rights.

The Advanced Law Lexicon28 defines Public Interest Litigation as:

“A legal action initiated in a Court of Law for the enforcement of Public Interest or
general interest in which the public or a class of the community has a pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected”

28
The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms, Words & Phrases, 4th edition
Justice P.N. Bhagwati29 stated that; it may therefore now be taken as well established
that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or a determinate class of
persons because of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is
imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without the authority
of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such
person or determinate class of persons is because of poverty, helplessness or disability
or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for
relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction,
order or writ, seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person
or determinate class of persons.

Indian court decision in Gupta30 court of Uganda adopted the principle in Muwanga
Kivumbi v Attorney General31, The Court stated that Public Interest Litigation is
litigation for the protection of Public Interest and it is not required that for the exercise of
the court’s jurisdiction, it is the person whose rights have been violated that brings the
complaint to court. The salient ingredient of Public Interest Litigation is that the suit is
brought for and in the interest of the Public. Such litigation is initiated only for redress of
a public injury, enforcement of a public duty, or vindicating interest of a public nature.

Several courts in East Africa have comprehended the concept of public interest
litigation, for instance, in Re: Mtikila.v. Attorney General of Tanzania32, the court
stated that public interest litigation is taken to advance a good cause or issue of public
importance as opposed to the specific interests of individual litigants. Include; rights for
women, promotion of equality rights.

However, judges seem to have divergence interpretation of Article 50(2) of the 1995
constitution, in the case of Rwanyarara.v. Attorney General33 justice Manyindo DCJ,
stated that we cannot accept the argument that any spirited person can represent any
group of persons without their acknowledgement of consent.
29
The herald of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India’s jurisprudence articulated the concept of PIL in S.P. Gupta
vs. Union of India AIR 1982 Supreme Court 149 as follows
30
Supra
31
Constitutional Appeal No.06of 2011
32
High Court civil suit no.51 of 1993
33
Constitutional petition no.11 of 1997
In the interpretation of judges opinion is that before a person takes step to undertake
representation of others in public capacity should first obtain consent. This position
seems to have been imported from civil procedure rules SI-71-1 as amended, O.1 R8
which requires the person who undertakes to represent others to seek court leave and
collect consent from each and every interested part. We believe the judge found it
prudent to avoid subsequent suits in regard to the same cause of action.

Article 137(3) of 1995 constitution as amended provide that a person who alleges that
an Act of Parliament or any other law or anything in or done under the authority of any
law; or any act or omission by any person or authority, is inconsistent with or in
contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may petition the constitutional court for
a declaration to that effect, and for redress where appropriate. Court in Muwanga
Kivumbi .vs. Attorney General34, stated that the language of the provision tend to
define a person but in broad interpretation groups of persons may have redress under
the same provision.

Public Interest Litigation under the Judicature (Fundamental and Other

Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2019 .

Under rule 4 of these rules provides that “public interest” includes the interest of
society or any segment of society in promoting human rights, democracy, rule of law
and good governance. On the other hand, rule 5 (2) of provides that public
interest action may be instituted in the following circumstances;

(a) Where there has been an infringement or threatened infringement of a

fundamental or other human right or freedom guaranteed under Chapter Four of
the Constitution;

(b) In a matter of public importance that promotes human rights, democracy, rule
of law and good governance; or

34
Constitutional Appeal No.06of 2011
 (c) Where the public interest action constitutes any question as to the
interpretation of the Constitution as provided for under Article 137 of the
Constitution.

Rules 6(d) &7(2) provide that only a person with an interest in public may petition the
constitutional court under Article 137 of the 1995 constitution.

The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019

Following Article 50 of the Constitution, Section 3 (1) of the Act, provides that a person
or organisation who claims that a fundamental or other right or freedom guaranteed
under the Constitution has been infringed or threatened may, without prejudice to any
other action concerning the same matter that is lawfully available, apply for redress to a
competent court by this Act.

The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community of 1995 as
amended as 20th August 2007
Under Article 27(2), the court shall have such other original, appellate human rights
and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the council at a suitable subsequent date.

In the case of African Network for Animal Welfare v The Attorney Of The United
Republic Of Tanzania,35 the Court stated that the Tanzania government's action to
construct a road on a national park was unlawful and a violation of the East African
treaty, hence court issued a permanent injunction to restrain Tanzania government from
construction.

Civil Litigation

35
20th June 2014, EACJ First Division Ref. No.0 of 2010
Constitution of Republic of Uganda 1995 of as amended
Article 50(1) of the 1995 constitution as amended provides as follows, any person
who claims that a fundamental or other right or freedom guaranteed under this
Constitution has been infringed or threatened, is entitled to apply to a competent court
for redress which may include compensation.

In Legal Brain Trust (LBT) ltd.vs. Attorney General, miscellaneous cause No.314
of 2021, Justice Ssekaana Musa stated that civil litigation concerns one or more
person(s) against others who may have infringed his/her rights.

The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019

Section 3 of Enforcement of human rights and freedoms (1) In accordance with article
50 of the Constitution, a person or organisation who claims that a fundamental or other
right or freedom guaranteed under the Constitution has been infringed or threatened
may, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter that is
lawfully available, apply for redress to a competent court in accordance with this Act.

Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement

Procedure) Rules, 2019.

Rule 5(1) (a) & (6) that a person may institute a suit where there has been an
infringement or threatened infringement of a fundamental right or other human right or
freedom.

The Treaty for the Established of the East African Community of 1995 as
amended as 20th August, 2007.

Article 27(2), the court shall have such other original, appellate human rights and other
jurisdiction as will be determined by the council at a suitable subsequent date.

In the case of Venant masenge.v. Attorney General of the republic of Burundi 36 the
court has jurisdiction on alleged EAC treaty violation arising out of the property dispute.

36
18, June, 2014, EACJ, first instance Division, Ref.No.90 of 2012
The court declared that the occupation of the applicant’s property was unlawful and
infringed Article 6(2) of the treaty.

Therefore, civil and public interest litigations are domestically and internationally
recognised as a matter of law towards enforcement of human rights.
 CHAPTER FOUR

CHALLENGES FACED IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND IN

CIVIL LITIGATION

Introduction

This chapter aims at exploring the challenges faced in the pursuance of both public
interest Litigation on one hand and Civil Litigation on the other.

Challenges faced in Public Interest Litigation

1. Ambiguity in Locus standi

Locus is understood to mean the legal capacity to institute proceedings. The relevance
of Locus is that it is the key to opening the avenue to access justice and court itself as
the rules of Locus define that the litigants must prove a direct connection to the subject
matter under contention; a link to the issue in dispute to be able to seek audience of
courts of law. J. Oloka-Onyango37 finds that principles inferred in Locus by Common
Law which Uganda inherited are seen to be rigid in the sense of proximity of a litigant to
the issue under contention, abuse of court processes which in turn are considered to be
frivolous and vexatious suits and also in the sense that without rules of standing
litigation is encouraged, making an assumption that the resources of courts are finite,
judges are not in great abundance, and litigation is a time-consuming, costly, and
resource-intensive enterprise for all sides involved.

The aspect of ‘direct connection’ could be derived from the case of Mtikila v Attorney
General38 where court found that the common law position to the effect that wherever a

37
J Oloka Onyango; When Courts Do Politics; Public Interest Litigation in East Africa,
38
Civil Case No. 51 of 1993
private individual challenges the decision of an administrative body, the question that
arose was whether that individual had sufficient interest in the decision to justify court’s
intervention. As earlier on stated, for Public Interest Litigation to materialize requires the
litigant to have a direct connection to the subject matter under contention. This raises
question of who actually has locus in the scandals that have bewildered Uganda at
large such as the recent ‘Mabaati’ saga. The iron sheets were for a certain section of
the public but the ambiguity remains in who can actually seek judicial redress on behalf
of that particular section of the Public.

Furthermore, an adequate illustration in regards to the proximity of the litigant to the

issue under contention was seen in the case of Prof. J Oloka Onyango & 9 Others v
Attorney General39 where it could be argued that in a sample space of ten petitioners,
only three of whom could be said to have a “direct interest” in the matter before court.
The three were Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera, Frank Mugisha, and Patience Julian
‘Pepe’ Onziema, who openly identified as gay or lesbian. Two of the petitioners were
politicians, one a journalist, and another a medical doctor. The last two were human
rights organizations. Oloka-Onyango recognizes that the case would’ve been thrown out
if the rules pertaining Locus standi in Uganda were too strict.

The common law setting has not always granted an automatic right to go to court in
such instances as the right to petition was dependent on class, gender, and property
holdings, among other status-related qualifications. This has therefore presented the
biggest challenge in the pursuance of justice via the Public Interest Litigation Avenue.

Oloka-Onyango in his book “When Courts do Politics; Public Interest Law and Litigation”
on Page 34 states;

“...the reasons behind the rules of locus standi relate much more to the
maintenance of an oppressive status quo than to any concept of justice or Rule
of Law derived from notions of inclusion and democracy. Instead, the doctrine
has served to reinforce pre-existing structures of dominance and control, to
confine court access to a limited class of privileged individuals, and to give

39
Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2014.
 primacy of place to technical rules of procedure over substantive claims of right.
In this way, locus standi has become not a handmaiden to justice, but an
instrument of legal repression”

Furthermore, the rules of Civil Procedure have a bearing on Locus standi in a way that
the Civil Procedure Act40 which provides for Res Judicata. This is to the effect that once
a matter once a matter is heard between parties and the issue is determined by a
competent Court, it cannot be tried again between the same parties or different parties
under the same title. Res Judicata limits the applicant to make one application in
respect of a matter and prevents a litigant or other persons claiming under the same title
from coming back to court to claim further relief not claimed in the earlier action. This is
an immediate disqualifier in the aspect of who can bring an action and why they can
bring it. There are cases that may arise where the violations will continue simply
because there is limitation as caused by Res Judicata.

2. Competent Court

This can be considered to be a ‘sister’ to the challenge in Locus standi. The constitution
of Uganda, 1995 as amended under Article 50 prescribes the forum for enforcement of
human rights actions as a "competent court". The term ‘competent court’ is however not
expressly defined in such regard but the practice has always been redress to the High
Court for enforcement of human rights under Article 50. 41 On the other hand however,
aspects of interpretation in Article 137 of the constitution are only enforced in the
constitutional court but challenge arises on whether the action should be under Article
50 or Article 137 and what the right forum is in such cases.

Wambuzi CJ in the case of Attorney General v David Tinyefunza42 opined that

jurisdiction of the constitutional court is limited in Article 137(1) of the Constitution. That
if the question before the Constitutional Court depends for its determination on the
interpretation or construction of a provision of the Constitutional court has no
40
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 Laws of Uganda.
41
Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules S.l No. 26 of 1992.
42
Constitutional Appeal No.I of 1997.
jurisdiction. Similarly in Ismail Serugo v KCC and Attorney General,43 court in this regard
found that while handling matters in Article 137, it can concurrently handle matters in
Article 50 but reverts that unless the action requires interpretation of the Constitution,
the court of first instance should be the High court.

In the case of Uganda versus Haruna Kanabi44 there was an issue of interpretation
and it involved alleged sedition by the defendant contrary to section 50 of the penal
code act. The court sentenced the accused despite acknowledging that Article 29 of the
constitution that protects the freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion,
assembly and association. The magistrate stated that;

“This court is not a Constitutional Court. It therefore lacks the capacity to

interpret the provisions of the Constitution beyond their literal meaning. As such,
I am of the view that where a state having regard to its supreme law keeps on its
statute books a law that makes it an offence to do a certain act and hence to limit
the enjoyment of a specified freedom, this court shall accept that restriction as
lawful and shall go ahead to punish any transgression of the same according to
the existing law until such a time as the state deems it fit to lift such restrictions
after realizing that such restriction violates a certain right”

Subsequently, Haruna Kanabi filed a constitutional petition along with Uganda

Journalists Safety Committee45 seeking a declaration that Sections 37, 41, 42, and 50 of
the Penal Code Act are inconsistent with the Constitution and their application to the 2 nd
petitioner are a violation of his human rights contained in Article 29, 20 and 41 of the
constitution. One of the grounds that was relied on to dismiss the petition as that the
matter had not come to court following a reference from another court as required under
Legal Notice No. 3 of 1996.

Such contingencies imply that the high court will be open to floodgates of such cases
which would in turn delay in delivery of justice makes the realization of environmental
rights through public interest litigation slow and inefficient.

43
Supreme court constitutional Appeal No.2 of 1998.
44
Criminal Case No. U. 977/95
45
Uganda Journalists Safety Committee & Anor v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. 6/97
 3. Enforcement of orders resulting from Public Interest Litigation

Another key challenge pertains the reality beneath the judgements passed in lieu of
public Interest Litigation. Some of these cases are put into reality while others are not,
or even taking a long time to be enforced. This is alive in the case of Uganda
Association of Women Lawyers and others v Attorney General 46 (The FIDA case)
that challenged sections 4(1) and (2), 5, 21, 22, 23 24 and 26 of the divorce Act for
being discriminatory against women in divorce matters. The sections were found to be
unconstitutional as they were in violation of the fundamental articles of non-
discrimination in the constitution. However, this ruling took about 20 years to be
enforced and this was done through section 18 of the Law Revision (Miscalleneous
Amendment) Act of 2023 that amended the sections of the divorce act that had been
found unconstitutional in the FIDA case.

4. Manifestations of the Political Question Doctrine.

The Political Question Doctrine concern’s the court’s reservations in determining

matters outside its ambit. Simply put, court determines whether it can handle a certain
matter or not taking into cognizance the political interference of the judiciary in other
arms of government. The case of Ex-parte Matovu is identified to be the initial link of
this doctrine with Uganda, originally from American case of Marbury v Maddison
decided in the Nineteenth century. The gist of this doctrine was understood to imply its
rationale is court’s desire to avoid interference into operations between branches of
government. Justifiably, some questions are best resolved through the political process,
i.e., voters approving or correcting the challenged action by voting for or against it.

In as much as the presence of the Political Question Doctrine is still in doubt; i.e. it dies
and resurrects, it is key to note that at the time it may be invoked, it could prove to be

46
Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2003 [2004] UGCC 1.
detrimental to pursuance of Public Interest Litigation. Kanyeihamba J (as he was) in
Attorney General v David Tinyefunza47 on his commentary concerning the Political
Question Doctrine agreed that courts should avoid ruling on matters that are customarily
to be left to the legislative and executive branches unless there are "clear" violations or
threats of violations of individual liberty or constitutional infringements.

In Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) & others v
Attorney General48, the petitioners challenged the adequacy of maternal health
services in Uganda claiming that the levels of funding and maternal health care in
Uganda constituted a blatant denial of the right to health enshrined in the constitution.
The petitioners sought judicial remedies such as judicial declarations as to the
unconstitutionality of government policies to the award of compensation to the families
of the deceased victims of poor maternal health care. The Constitutional Court
dismissed the petition, holding that matters of government health policy are non-
justiciable political questions.

The case of ‘CEHURD’ as seen above shows that the court shall continue to intervene
in such matters only if and when it is convenient and comfortable and yet has the power
to enter into the oversight and enforcement of social and economic rights to the extent
that it deems itself proper, able and willing to do so. This is therefore considered a key
challenge in the pursuance of justice via Public Interest Litigation.

Challenges faced in Pursuance of Civil Litigation

This part highlights the challenges faced in pursuance of Justice via Civil Litigation while
being alive to the fact that most of these challenges cut across even to the Public
Interest Litigation as well.

1. Cost of Legal services and financing.

The costs of services in civil litigation are considered to be high. This involves costs
such as instruction fees, filing, taxes, costs awarded by court among others. For
47
Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997.
48
Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011, UGCC 4.
instance in the fifth schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs)
49
Rules provides for the scale of fees in respect of business where remuneration is not
provided, journeys from home for everyday of not less than six hours employed on
business or in travelling cost UGX 300,000. Other aspects concern filing fees,
Advocates remuneration among others. This is also in cognizance of the state of the
economy which then disqualifies a number of people from accessing Justice via Civil
Litigation.

2. Delays and slow justice delivery.

This can be attributed to the problematic scheduling of matters in Civil Litigation where
one finds themselves having for instance a land matter roll on for close to 15 years.
Similarly in as regards adjournment, matters in civil litigation tend to be adjourned for
longer than what is deemed to be necessary. A new hearing date may come months
after the adjournment was made. This is one of the factors in play that indicate the loss
of confidence in the Justice system.

3. Rigidity of Civil Litigation Laws.

Considering that the world is fast evolving, particularly in the Legal sector, there has
been slow development in the laws to address new technological advancements and
the challenges that subsequently arise with them. A proper example of this is the
Government online administration systems such as OBRS, ECCMIS among others,
which have become mandatory platforms of use and yet, the law has not yet been
amended or improved to regulate them and their users.

4. Corruption

49
S.I 267-4
In as much as there exists anti-corruption legislation, the vice still remains rampant and
presents a challenge in both civil litigation and Public Interest Litigation equally. For
example, at times judicial officers are compromised and court files or evidence
disappears from the registry harboured by the judicial officers themselves. There is also
a tendency of dilly dallying with court dates in effort to frustrate the other party to
abandon the case. This presents therefore that the longer the corruption subsists, the
more the challenge arises.

5. Political Interference.

Although Article 128 of the constitution provides for the independence of the Judiciary,
often times Politicians especially under the executive and legislative arm of government
tend to interfere with cases with which they have an interest, individually or as the
government. In Erias Lukwago v AG and Others50, the Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago
was removed from his office on allegations of misconduct and incompetence in a
meeting convened by the minister of Kampala on 25 th November, 2013 contrary to an
interim order of court prohibiting the same. Justice Lydia Mugambe in her decision
stated that;

“If a court order can be ignored by the minister and described as an unauthentic
document without any steps being taken to consult the court that issued the
order, then that is a direct interference with the independence of the judiciary and
must stop.”

Politicians also have a tendency to intimidate judicial officers when handling sensitive
cases that may have a great significance of the political state of the country and also
their political interests.

50
Miscalleneous Application No. 94 of 2014.
 CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

Civil litigation and public interest litigation both aim at bringing an action in court to
enforce a right that has been infringed on by another person. If harm is inflicted on a
person by another, the victim has to go to a court for compensation by that person who
inflicted the harm.

FINDINGS
In both types of litigation, the Claimant will ask the court for a particular solution to
his/her problem. The remedy will have to be met by the ‘wrong-doer’ (the Defendant or
Respondent) and the remedy requested will vary from case to case and from court to
court. Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court the inherent power to
make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice

There are two parties or litigants, to any litigation: the “Claimant”, the party which
believes it is suffering harm and has a legal cause for a complaint and the
“Defendant”, the party which is defending the legal complaint or claim brought against
it.51

Public Interest Litigation” is litigation that is taken in order to advance a “good cause” or
issue of public importance as opposed to the specific interests of civil litigants. 52 For
example, asking the court to: improve the human rights situation where you live

51
Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1
52
in J. Oloka-Onyango, Human Rights and Public Interest Litigation in East Africa: A Bird’s Eye View; The George
Washington International Law Review Volume 47, Number 4]
advance women’s rights, promote equality rights, ensure the public has access to
information and is able to express its opinions, protect the environment

The matter must affect a significant number of people not just the individual; or raise
matters of broad public concern as opposed to civil litigation The Supreme Court of
Uganda has held that ‘the salient ingredient of Public Interest Litigation is that the suit is
brought for and in the interest of the Public. Such litigation is initiated only for redress of
a public injury, enforcement of a public duty or vindicating interest of public nature’. 53 In
the same case the Supreme Court also stated that there are instances where a matter
brought to court in private interest affects matters that are in the public interest but the
mere fact that a court ruling in a case brought by an individual will benefit the public
does not place the lawsuit in the category of Public Interest Litigation.

PIL shares many features with ordinary litigation, but it is different in one crucial aspect:
ordinary litigation are usually brought in order to protect an individual’s own personal
interests but the intention of PIL is protect the interests of a section of the public at large
or the natural environment. It is in some ways similar to a group or class action
(Representative suit as envisaged in Order VII rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules)
where lots of claimants with similar interest bring a claim.

PIL is commonly used as a mechanism for political, social, or legal change .People
engage in PIL when they feel that the legal rights of a certain group of the communities
or social/cultural groupings) or the natural environment are threatened. An individual or
organisation representing the interests of the group or issue in question will bring the
legal complaint to court. Case in point the supreme court in Kampala has ruled, in a
majority judgment of 6:154, that the traditional custom and practice of demanding a
refund of the bride price if a marriage breaks down is unconstitutional and
“dehumanising to women”.

53
[Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL NO. 06 OF 2011) [2017] UGSC 4 (14 February
2017); at http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2017/4/]

54
[Mifumi (U) Ltd & Anor Vs Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2014) [2015] UGSC 13 (6
August 2015) at http://www.ulii.org/node/25384]
PIL’s main function is to actively promote change, it is usually part of a wider plan and
as such, PIL cases are chosen carefully as part of an overall campaign for change
which may also include other strategies such as lobbying and demonstrations as
opposed to civil litigation.

The foundation of public interest litigation in Uganda is in Article 50(2) of the 1995
Constitution of Uganda which provides that, “Any person or organization may bring
an action against the violation of another person’s or group’s human rights.” The
foundation of public interest litigation in Uganda is in Article 50(2) of the 1995
Constitution of Uganda which provides that, “Any person or organization may bring
an action against the violation of another person’s or group’s human rights.”

Article 137 (3) of the Constitution is also another avenue which supports PIL, it
provides that, “A person who alleges that – a) An Act of Parliament or any other
law or anything in or done under the authority of any law; or b) Any act or
omission by any person or authority,is inconsistent with or in contravention of a
provision of this Constitution, may petition the Constitutional Court for a
declaration to that effect, and for redress where appropriate.

This was also highlighted by Justice Mulenga JSC (RIP) in Ismail Serugo v KCC
&Attorney General55, who noted that the right to present a constitutional petition was
not vested only in the person who suffered the injury but also in any other person.

Article 50 prescribes the forum for enforcement of human rights actions as a

“competent court” while for Article 137 actions, the Constitutional Court is the forum.
The challenge always arises in determining whether the action should be under Article
50 or Article 137 and therefore deciding which the correct forum is. In Ismail Serugo v
KCC & A.G56 the Court ruled that the Constitutional Court could deal with Article 50
matters in the course of handling Article 137 matters. However unless the action
requires interpretation of the Constitution, the Court of first instance should be the High
Court.

55
(Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998) [at http://www.ulii.org/node/15773]
56
Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998
In ordinary suits, the law requires that the claimant gives notice of intention to sue to the
defendant / respondent.

With PIL, there is no requirement for any pre-action notices even where the defendant is
the Government or a scheduled corporation. Any form or length of notice would suffice.

In TEAN v Attorney General and NEMA 57, court noted that there is no need for giving
45 days statutory notice to sue where there is a breach of the fundamental right or
freedom provided for under the bill of rights of the Constitution

In ordinary suits, the law requires that the claimant gives notice of intention to sue to the
defendant / respondent.

With PIL, there is no requirement for any pre-action notices even where the defendant is
the Government or a scheduled corporation. Any form or length of notice would suffice.

In TEAN v Attorney General and NEMA58 court noted that there is no need for giving
45 days statutory notice to sue where there is a breach of the fundamental right or
freedom provided for under the bill of rights of the Constitution

A public interest case is instituted by way of Notice of Motion supported by an Affidavit

as provided for under Rule 3(1) of the Judicature (Fundamental Rights and
Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules59 However, where the claimant is seeking
for additional reliefs such as special damages or restoration orders, the proper
procedure would be by way of ordinary Plaint per Order IV rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Rules. The evidence may be presented by either oral or written
submissions as the parties may agree or as court may order.

Is it aimed at a broader public good, as opposed to the specific interests of an

individual litigant?60 In Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General 61
, Supreme Court of

57
Misc. Application No. 39 of 2001) [at http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/ug-20010828-the-
environmental-action-network
58
Misc. Application No. 39 of 2001
59
S.I 13-4. [See National Association Of Professional Environmentalists -V AES Nile Power Ltd (High Court Misc.
Application No. 268 of 1999)]
60
[See J. Oloka-Onyango, Human Rights and Public Interest Litigation in East Africa: A Bird’s Eye View]
61
Constitutional Appeal No. 06 Of 2011
Uganda at Kampala has stated that in PIL, the applicant has not his or her own interest
and does not struggle for himself or herself whereas in Private Litigation an individual
struggles for their own benefit]

Is such litigation initiated only for redress of a public injury, enforcement of a public duty,
or vindicating interest of a public nature?62

Locus standi

The issue of locus standi, where persons have legal standing to commence such
actions practically gives any public-spirited individual right to institute an action to
protect the wider interest of the public. Every Ikem Osodi 63 is given latitude to vent the
collective frustrations of the public and speak up for the little man.

Procedure in as far as enforcement

The procedure in as far as enforcement of human rights is concerned is trickled down

to even Magistrates Courts whose accessibility is easier for a majority of Ugandans 64. In
65
this same regard, this introduces an ‘epistolary aspect’ to human rights actions by

62
[See Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General Constitutional Appeal No. 06 Of 2011, Supreme Court of Uganda at
Kampala ]
63
Ikem Osodi is a character in Chinua Achebe’s classic novel Anthills of the Savanna (Penguin Modern Classics,
2001). He has a perchance for speaking his mind independently and defending the disentitled man through the
National Gazette of which he is editor; that, despite his closeness to the President of that novel’s Republic
(Kangan). In similar spirit, he picks his girlfriend from the lower wrungs of society, without apologies, but rather, as
a matter of conviction. Achebe extols Osodi’s egalitarianism, communitarianism, large heart, accommodation and
compassion for the weak and poor in his society through the prose-poetic speech of the gray-haired and bearded
man, leader of the delegation from a hunger and misfortune-struck region of the country (Abazon) to the
President. See Anthills of the Savannah from pp. 115-123. 127 However, it cannot entirely be ruled out that this
was done under donor pressure, especially judging from the President’s attitude to rights violations which; at best,
is non-interested, at worst, quite dismissing. See, for instance, his 2017 directions and guidance as Commander-
inChief to security agencies on torture.
https://www.statehouse.go.ug/media/presidential-statements/2017/05/16/presidents-statement-torture
64
Section 5.
65
See Oloka, ibid.
providing clarity that such applications may be made in any language or even orally 66.
This also eliminates the requirement to serve statutory notice in claims within the
purview of the Act67hence embracing Article 126 (2) (e) which provides that even when
the formal procedures are not followed, no actions will be rejected on account of those
hitches.

Liability

The Human Rights Enforcement Act expands the scope under public litigation with
different orders and remedies where which it introduces the aspect of personal liability
for violation of human rights and freedoms68. This is because In the past, many agents
of the state committed gruesome violations of rights with the license that it was not them
personally, but rather, government vicariously through the Attorney General that would
be held liable.

Receipt of remedies

It clearly enjoins the state to always act quick in paying off such monetary claims as
may be awarded against it resulting from human rights actions 69.this means the
problematic delays on recoveries of damages against the law offenders is made faster
in the public litigation arrangement. For example Section 13 (2) thereof stipulates that
courts have powers to order and direct the executive to take all reasonable and
meaningful measures and steps for the progressive realization of rights and freedoms.

66
Section 5 (2) of the Act.

67
Perhaps in tandem with the decision of KCCA v. Kabandize and 20 Others where this requirement
was found discriminatory.
68
Section 10.
69
Section 12 (2).
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of our research suggests recommendations that the Judiciary of Uganda
may adopt in order to make improvements particularly in the Public Interest Litigation
sector since it is the least developed of the two. Our case study and inspiration has
been mainly derived from the PIL system framework of India which is ranked among the
most advanced and dynamic system in the world. We took interest in the fact that
before the 1970s, India’s PIL was just as underdeveloped or maybe less developed
than Uganda’s today but somehow, they have managed to transform it into the
inspirational system it is today.

The recommendations below are the mechanisms we have found to be relatively

practical, adoptable and suitable for Uganda’s judicial landscape.

1. Dilute the current strict legal requirement of “locus standi”

The foremost change should come in the form of the dilution of the requirement of
“locus standi” for initiating proceedings to ensure redressal to those who are otherwise
too poor to move the courts or were unaware of their legal entitlements. This may be
done by courts entertaining actions to be brought on their behalf by social activists and
lawyers. In fact, PIL allows any citizen or organization to file a case in public interest,
there is no strict requirement of locus standi (personal interest). However, the petitioner
must demonstrate a genuine concern for public welfare and establish a sufficient nexus
to the issue at hand.70

The courts should depart from the common-law framework of adversarial litigation in
ordinary civil and criminal proceedings, and instead take on more active role trying to
find the solution. That is to say, that while an adversarial environment may prevail in
cases where actions are brought to highlight administrative apathy or the Government’s
condonation of abusive practices, in most public interest related litigation, the judges
take on a far more active role in terms of posing questions to the parties as well as
exploring solutions. This happens especially in actions seeking directions for ensuring
governmental accountability or environmental protection, the orientation of the
70
Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan; SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL LECTURE 2008:
“GROWTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA” (2009) 21 SAcLJ, Annual Lecture 2008
proceedings is usually more akin to collective problem-solving rather than an
acrimonious contest between the counsels. This would be an ideal method to adopt by
our courts here in Uganda.71

2. Adoption of Suo Moto action practice by Ugandan courts

Suo Moto is a Latin term meaning "on its own motion". In Public Interest Litigation,
suo moto is the action initiated by a court or an authority on its own accord, without any
external petition or request. This proactive approach is essential in upholding justice,
allowing legal systems to address issues that may otherwise go unnoticed. Suo moto
discernment is an intrinsic power of the courts to start judicial procedures without being
appealed to by a bothered party. It gives the legal executive the position to engage in
issues of public interest, guaranteeing that essential freedoms and law and order are
maintained. The idea of suo moto discernment arose in the last part of the 1970s as a
type of legal activism, pointed toward making the equity framework more open to
underestimated segments of society.

The Supreme Court of India practices suo moto insight under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution, while the High Courts practice this power under Article 226. With the
assistance of this power, the courts can give mandates, requests, or writs to uphold
major privileges in any event, when neither a proper appeal nor a public interest
litigation (PIL) being recorded.

The main rationale for this “judicial activism” in India lies in the highly unequal social
profile of their population, where judges must take proactive steps to protect the
interests of those who do not have a voice in the political system and do not have the
means or information to move the courts. This places the Indian courts in a very
different social role as compared to several developed nations where directions given
by “unelected judges” are often viewed as unjustified restraints on the will of the

71
Supra
majority. It is precisely this countermajoritarian function that needs to be robustly
discharged by an independent and responsible Judiciary.72 At this point, we recall an
observation made in the matter of Bihar Legal Support Society v Chief Justice of
India (AIR 1987 SC 38 at 39, para 2):

The majority of the people of our country are subjected to this denial of ‘access to
justice’ and overtaken by despair and helplessness, they continue to remain victims of
an exploitative society where economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few and
it is used for perpetuation of domination over large masses of human beings …The
strategy of public interest litigation has been evolved by this Court with a view to
bringing justice within the easy reach of the poor and disadvantaged sections of the
community.

Uganda’s social, political and economic atmosphere is similarly volatile with a great
number of people with the need for judicial services but without the ability to access
them. It is individuals such these that would benefit greatly from courts adopting suo
moto practice.

Suo moto practices take on many forms in India and they include the following.

3. Adopting Letters as Writ Petitions

Courts in India have taken up the practice of allowing initiation of proceedings on the
basis of letters. This practice has been streamlined and has come to be described as
“epistolary jurisdiction”. It was adopted by Indian Courts because in numerous
instances, the court took suo moto cognisance of matters involving the abuse of
prisoners, bonded labourers and inmates of mental institutions, through letters
addressed to sitting judges.

Thus, seeing as the majority of Uganda’s population is living below the poverty line and
many are unable to afford proper legal representation, the adoption of this practice
would increase immensely the level of dispensation of justice to the masses by courts.

72
See Susan D Susman, “Distant voices in the Courts of India: Transformation ofstanding in Public Interest
Litigation” (1994) 13 Wisconsin International Law Journal 57
This would in turn go a long way in improving the judiciary’s general perception among
the people.

4. Appoint Fact-finding committees to facilitate the availability of information

to PIL courts

To address the issue of delay in dispensation of PIL suits and to facilitate the lack of the
information present on record for court on the general status quo before a proceedings
commence which contributes to the said delay, courts should adopt the practice of
appointing “fact-finding commissions” on a case-by-case basis, which are deputed to
inquire into the subject-matter of the case and report back to the court in time. This
allows for an informed and expedient dispensation of a suit.

5. Expand the scope of remedies available to PIL Litigants and adopting

follow-up mechanisms to ensure that their orders are effected.

Courts should also begin to expand the scope of remedies available to litigants under
PIL. At the moment, we mostly just have the traditional extent of writ jurisdiction which
were of course a colonial inheritance from the British-era and the remedies that could
be invoked are those of habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, prohibition and
certiorari. However, the Indian courts have pushed the boundaries of constitutional
remedies by evolving the concept of a follow up mechanism e.g. “continuing
mandamus” which involves the passing of regular directions and the monitoring of their
implementation by executive agencies. In addition to designing remedies for ensuring
that their orders are complied with, the courts have also resorted to private law
remedies such as injunctions and “stay” orders in PIL matters.

6. Developing PIL Law by making laws through setting precedents

Ugandan courts should revolutionise the law on PIL through creating laws by creating
precedents. For example under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme
Court’s rulings are considered to be the “law of the land” and become binding
precedents for all courts and tribunals in the country’s legal system just as like in
Uganda. Hence, the Supreme Court’s decisions in PIL matters in India have
progressively shaped a unique jurisprudence that gives due weightage to the interests
of the underprivileged and backward sections in society. A significant consequence of
this is that creative remedies designed for particular fact-situations come to be widely
reported and are referred to by courts all over the country. In this way, the rulings given
in PIL cases create an active judicial dialogue within the whole legal system. This
mechanism has been working well for Civil Litigation in Uganda so it is suffice to say
that it is possible for PIL too. This development of PIL Jurisprudence though, by our
courts can only be made possible by increasing the number of cases handled and
settled by the courts. As has already been discussed elsewhere in this research, one
the reasons why PIL is still so an unpopular among legal practitioners is partly because
of the attitude of the Courts themselves towards this area. It is alleged that courts often
frustrate PIL with strict rules and ambiguous standards which has led to its gradual
decline. To counter this narrative, courts ought to first recognise the need to engage
with the egalitarian constitutional philosophy by taking the lead in raising concerns
about improving access to justice for the underprivileged. In a report on legal aid
published in 1971, Justice P N Bhagwati of India observed that:73

“Even while retaining the adversary system, some changes may be effected whereby
the judge is given a greater participatory role in the trial so as to place the poor, as far
as possible, on a footing of equality with the rich in administration of justice.”

It is on this basis that we recommend that our courts take on a more receptive attitude
and administrative framework towards PIL in order that in order to encourage institution
of these suits which will in turn contribute towards the improvement of the jurisprudence
in that area of litigation. This can be advantageous to the government in the long run to
large extent, since it detracts from the constitutional principle of “separation of powers”
by allowing the courts to arbitrarily pass orders which otherwise may be difficult for the
executive agencies to implement.

7. Create a judicial arm/division or court circuit exclusively for PIL

73
Ashok Desai & S Muralidhar, “Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems” in Supreme but not infallible (B
N Kirpal et al eds) (Oxford University Press, 2000) pp 159–192 at p 161
Uganda ought to create a division or arm or circuit of court aimed at exclusively
handling PIL matters in all their forms. For example, India had the Committee on
Judicare, consisting of Justice v R Krishna Iyer and Justice Bhagwati, referred to Social
Action Litigation as a supplemental tool to grassroots legal services programs, later
published a report on it in 1977 which soon after, jumpstarted the practice of taking suo
moto cognizance of matters based on letters addressed to them. Looking at the effect
the work of the Committee on Judicare has had on India to date, we submit that the
creation of a judicial arm or division or court circuit for Uganda will have a great positive
impact on the judicial landscape on PIL.

Therefore, our recommendation to the judiciary of Uganda to improve our PIL system is
to dilute the current strict legal requirement of “locus standi” in PIL, adopt Suo Moto
action practice by Ugandan courts; appoint Fact-finding committees to facilitate the
availability of information to PIL courts; expand the scope of remedies available to PIL
Litigants and adopt follow-up mechanisms to ensure that their orders are effected;
develop PIL Law by making laws through setting precedents; and last but not least,
create a judicial arm/division or court circuit exclusively for PIL.

Conclusion
It is thus evident that the coexistence of civil litigation and public interest litigation within
the legal landscape of Uganda presents both challenges and opportunities. While both
avenues serve as means for seeking legal redress for civil wrongs, they operate under
different principles and approaches, leading to a divergent legal landscape that has
rendered public interest litigation less popular than civil litigation.

This report has delved into the nature and scope of public interest litigation and civil
litigation, identifying key differences in their principles, approaches, and judicial
interpretations. It has also discussed the challenges facing both legal realms, including
procedural hurdles, resource constraints, and differing judicial attitudes.

Despite these challenges, it is evident that there is immense potential for civil litigation
and public interest litigation to coexist harmoniously and complement each other in the
pursuit of justice. To achieve this, it is imperative to bridge the gap between the two
legal realms by promoting greater understanding and awareness among legal
practitioners, judges, and the general public.

Furthermore, there is a need for legislative reforms aimed at aligning the procedural
rules and principles governing civil litigation and public interest litigation. This could
involve the enactment of specific legislation or amendments to existing laws to clarify
the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in public interest litigation and
streamline the procedures for initiating and adjudicating such cases.

Additionally, efforts should be made to address the underlying factors that have
contributed to the relative unpopularity of public interest litigation, including access to
justice issues, lack of funding and support for public interest organizations, and limited
awareness of legal rights among marginalized communities.

In conclusion, by fostering a more conducive legal environment that promotes the

harmonious coexistence of civil litigation and public interest litigation, Uganda can
enhance access to justice, promote the rule of law, and safeguard the rights and
interests of its citizens. Through collaboration between stakeholders, including
government agencies, civil society organizations, and the judiciary, it is possible to
overcome the challenges facing both legal realms and realize the full potential of public
interest litigation as a powerful tool for social justice and accountability.