KAMPALA, Uganda | The High Court of Uganda has dismissed a case challenging the Church of Uganda’s decision to revoke the election of Rev. Canon Godfrey Kasana as Bishop of Luweero Diocese, affirming that courts have no jurisdiction over matters of a purely religious nature. In a ruling delivered on November 20, 2024, Justice Ssekaana Musa emphasized that such disputes fall under the internal governance of the Church.

The case arose from the decision of the House of Bishops to nullify Rev. Canon Kasana’s election, citing alleged integrity concerns. Four church members that filed the case argued that the revocation was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. They sought a court order reinstating Kasana and compelling the Church to proceed with his consecration.

Four Bishops from the Dioceses of North West Ankole, Central Buganda, Bukedi and Lango led by Rt. Rev. Amos Magezi, challenged the suit maintaining that the matter was beyond the court’s jurisdiction. They argued that the decision was made in accordance with the Church of Uganda’s Provincial Constitution and Canons, which govern the election and revocation of bishops.

Justice Ssekaana emphasized the doctrine of “ministerial exception,” which shields religious institutions from judicial interference in matters related to their internal operations. He pointed out that the process of selecting and removing bishops is fundamentally a spiritual exercise, not a civil one.

“The selection of a bishop is a religious function. The court cannot impose its judgment on who is qualified to lead a congregation,” the judge stated, emphasizing that such matters are best resolved within the Church’s structures. The court further found that the House of Bishops acted within its mandate under the Church’s governing documents.

The ruling aligns with both Ugandan and international precedents that uphold the autonomy of religious institutions. The court emphasized that civil judges are ill-equipped to adjudicate disputes requiring interpretation of religious doctrines or governance.

Justice Ssekaana cited Article 29 of Uganda’s Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion, and Article 4 of the Church’s Provincial Constitution, which grants the House of Bishops authority over such matters. He further highlighted that the Church’s internal mechanisms for dispute resolution should have been exhausted before seeking judicial intervention.

This case reaffirms the principle that not all disputes are suitable for resolution in civil courts. Justice Ssekaana’s ruling stresses the importance of respecting institutional boundaries between state and religion. The judgment also highlights the need for litigants to carefully assess whether their claims fall within the court’s jurisdiction before filing suits.