Dr. Wilfrida Itolondo & 4 others v The President & 6 others

Where appointment to a statutory office is governed by an Act of Parliament, contravention of the stipulated procedure does not necessarily invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The rights of the parties and any remedy must be sought in the legislative instrument governing the appointment. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is engaged only where an issue of constitutional interpretation or application arises from the Court of Appeal's judgment or where a matter of general public importance is disclosed.

The Court perused its own prior judgment and found that it had identified Articles 134(2)(b), 135 and 232(1)(g) as relevant, had determined that the President exercised statutory rather than constitutional powers, and had held Article 232(1)(g) inapplicable to re-appointment. Because those issues of application of the Constitution were judicially determined below, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(a) was properly activated.

Applying the Steyn criteria, the Court held that it is not the appointment of a specific individual that is of public importance but adherence to the relevant procedures and criteria. The inquiry into whether Articles 10, 73, 134, 135, 232 and Section 7 of the Sixth Schedule are mandatory in appointments to statutory offices is substantial, broad-based and bears on the public interest. The points of law arose in the courts below and involve no contested facts.