The Supreme Court of Uganda’s Powers to Depart from or Reopen (Review) Its Decisions Under Article 132(4) of the Constitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Article 132(4) of Uganda’s Constitution (1995) states that the Supreme Court may generally consider its decisions binding but can depart from them when necessary. Unlike some other African constitutions, Uganda’s does not explicitly authorise the Supreme Court to review its own rulings. The drafters intended for Article 132(4) to permit only departure, not review. However, this Article does not explicitly forbid review, and Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules (1996) allows the Court to set aside judgments found to be ‘null and void’. This article relies on the drafting history of the Constitution and contends that Rule 2(2) aligns with the Constitution since Article 132(4) does not expressly bar review. Drawing on practices in countries like Kenya, Ghana, and Tanzania, it argues that the Court could invoke its inherent powers to broaden the grounds for review when justice so requires, even beyond cases deemed null and void.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".