KAMPALA – The Court of Appeal has dismissed with costs a six-year application that had been filed by the Attorney General and Kampala City Council Authority seeking permission in the appeal against a High court order that re-instated Erias Lukwago back to the office as Lord Mayor of Kampala in 2014. Mr Lukwago is entitled to over UGX500 million arising from the dispute.
Justices; Stephen Musota , Kenneth Kakuru and Christopher Madrama have unanimously resolved that the Attorney General and KCCA deserved no leave to appeal, saying the application had been overtaken by events and the would be filed appeal will serve no purpose in law, “simply because the Lord Mayor’s term of office that they want to challenge expired in 2016” and he(Lukwago) has since been re-elected for another term of office ending in 2021.
The dismissed application arose from a 2014 ruling of High court judge Lydia Mugambe which re-instated Erias Lukwago back to the office of the Lord Mayor having realised that the KCCA councillors erroneously voted to remove him from office in November 2013.
However, the Attorney General and KCCA filed an application seeking permission to challenge the same on grounds that the High court held in contempt officials of Ministry of Justice and KCCA who were not present in court and had no knowledge about a court order stopping the impeachment of Lukwago from the office of the Lord Mayor.
The said officials held in contempt were among others; The late AG Peter Nyombi, then KCCA ED Jennifer Musisi and then Kampala Minister Frank Tumwebaze.
“I have not found arguable points of law that merits judicial consideration by an appellate court. The individuals affected by the court order claim not to have had any knowledge of the said order. This cannot be the case because the individuals actually had legal representation in court at the time the order was made. The Attorney General was in court and ought to have communicated the court order to the affected parties” the court ruled.
Court also noted that an arguable point must relate to the ruling of the court showing that there is a possibility that the court erred in law and the order could be overturned on appeal.
“I have not found such arguable points of the law in this case. The order holding the parties in contempt had no sanction against the persons. None of the affected persons has complained or shown any dissatisfaction or taken any steps to challenge the court order holding each in contempt,” the justices noted.
In the premises, the applicant’s application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs
