Wakilii

Uganda Polybags Ltd v Development Finance Co. Ltd (Civil Application 2 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 13 · 2000 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against a single Justice of Appeal's refusal to disqualify himself from the Coram hearing a constitutional petition.
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; the intended appeal was held to be incompetent under Article 132.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a single Justice of Appeal's refusal to disqualify himself from the Coram of the Constitutional Court. The Court held that the decision whether a judge should recuse himself for alleged bias must be left entirely to that judge's own discretion, and the rest of the Coram has no jurisdiction to determine it. It further held that Article 132 confers jurisdiction only over appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal sitting as a Constitutional Court, not from the exercise of discretion by a single judge. The intended appeal was therefore incompetent and leave to appeal would be pointless.

Facts

Uganda Polybags Ltd filed Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2000 against Development Finance Company of Uganda Ltd, Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd, Christopher Homby and the Attorney General, seeking declarations that certain acts connected with concluded and pending litigation were unconstitutional. Before the petition was heard, counsel for the petitioner asked Justice Twinomujuni to disqualify himself from the Coram, alleging a likelihood of bias because he had participated in deciding Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 1999, some of whose holdings the petition challenged. Justice Twinomujuni refused to step down. No objection was raised against Justice Kitumba, who had also sat on that earlier application. The full Constitutional Court rejected leave to appeal the refusal but adjourned to allow application to the Supreme Court, which then heard and dismissed the application on 13 July 2000.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 132 of the Constitution to entertain an appeal against the decision of a single Justice of the Constitutional Court declining to disqualify himself.
  2. Whether leave to appeal against a single Judge's refusal to recuse himself from the Coram should be granted.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Application dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Recusal — Disqualification of Judge for Bias — Discretion of the Individual Judge
The decision whether a judge should disqualify himself or herself from sitting in a case where charges of bias or likelihood of bias are levelled against him or her must be left entirely to that judge's own discretion; the other members of the Coram have no jurisdiction to determine the question, as to do so would amount to trying the judge in respect of his or her integrity.
Appellate Jurisdiction — Article 132 — Appeals from Constitutional Court
Under Article 132 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain only appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeal sitting as a Constitutional Court; it has no jurisdiction over an appeal against the discretionary decision of a single judge of that court.
Leave to Appeal — Incompetent Appeal — Futility of Granting Leave
Where an intended appeal would not be competent because the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it, it is pointless to grant leave to appeal and the application for leave will be refused.
Natural Justice — Right to Choose Adjudicator — Judicial Oath
Litigants have no right to choose which judicial officers should hear and determine their cases; all judicial officers take an oath to administer justice impartially and without fear, favour, affection or ill will, and that oath must be respected.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 132
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 132(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 40 Rules 1 and 2

Cases cited (2)

  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1997)
  • G.M Combined (U) Ltd v A.K Detergent (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 9 of 2000)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.