Lwengo MP-elect, Muyanja Mbabaali has withdrawn a Constitutional petition in which he was challenging a 2011 judgment by the Court of Appeal, saying the case had been overtaken by events
Lwengo MP-elect, Muyanja Mbabaali has withdrawn a Constitutional petition in which he was challenging a 2011 judgment by the Court of Appeal, saying the case had been overtaken by events.
Mr Simon Peter Kinobe, the lawyer representing Mr Mbabaali, told the Constitutional Court led by Deputy Chief Justice Steven Kavuma that his client had lost interest in the case.
Other justices were: Richard Buteera, Elizabeth Musoke, Paul Mugamba and Catherine Bamugemereire.
“This matter was brought in public interest and was being withdrawn in the interest of justice. I pray that court be pleased to allow the withdrawal of the case,” said Mr Kinobe prompting the court to allow the matter to be withdrawn.
However, in the unanimous ruling read by Justice Buteera, the court ordered Mr Mbabaali to pay legal costs incurred by the Attorney General.
The court was moved by State Attorney, Mr Elisha Bafiirawala who challenged the submission to have the matter withdrawn, saying it required an order for apology and the petitioner to pay costs.
In 2012, Mr Mbabaali petitioned court challenging the Court of Appeal on the proceedings of the 2011 Election Petition in which he was battling outgoing MP Mathias Nsubuga.
In the petition he had alleged there were regrettable circumstances leading to interference that the justices on the panel, Augustine Nshimye, Constance Byamugisha (RIP) and Arach Amoko abdicated their constitutional independence and partiality in contravention of the Constitution.
Through his lawyers - KMT Advocates - Mr Mbabaali had asserted that acts of the justices in proceeding and delivery of judgment in the case where they excluded him by intentionally, neglecting and or refusing to serve his lawyers with hearing notices was unconstitutional.
According to the petition, Mr Mbabaali had also challenged the act of the Court of Appeal uttering contents of judgment in the election to the media before judgment was delivered as inconsistent and in contravention of the law.