The South African Constitution, particularly its Bill of Rights, is regarded as one of the most progressive in the world. The Ugandan Constitution, adopted around the same time as its South African counterpart, also has a Bill of Rights. Lawyers and advocacy groups in both countries have taken advantage of their constitutions to challenge the government to enforce several rights ranging from health care services, education, water and sanitation, to housing and social security, albeit at a lower scale and with less impact and significance in Uganda than South Africa. The purpose of this paper is to discuss and determine the constitutional impact of strategic litigation in South Africa and Uganda. The paper begins with a conceptual context of strategic litigation. The specific reasons for the choice of the two countries are highlighted before focusing, in a comparative way, on some relevant organizations and the various court decisions that have emanated from strategic litigation in both countries. The paper identifies similarities and differences between Ugandan and South African approaches to strategic litigation. Conclusions are then made after highlighting the comparative lessons that both countries can learn from each other, but also what other African states can learn from these two countries’ experiences.

南非宪法，尤其是其《权利法案》，被认为是世界上最进步的宪法之一。与南非宪法大约同时通过的乌干达宪法也有一项权利法案。两国的律师和倡导团体利用其宪法挑战政府执行多项权利，包括医疗保健服务、教育、水和卫生、住房和社会保障，尽管规模较小，影响和意义较小在乌干达比南非。本文的目的是讨论和确定战略诉讼在南非和乌干达的宪法影响。本文从战略诉讼的概念背景开始。选择两国的具体原因，在以比较的方式重点关注一些相关组织和两国战略诉讼所产生的各种法院判决之前，重点突出了两国的具体原因。该文件确定了乌干达和南非战略诉讼方法之间的异同。然后在强调两国可以相互学习的比较教训以及其他非洲国家可以从这两个国家的经验中学到什么之后得出结论。