Wakilii

Foundation for Human Rights Initiatiative & 7 Others v Mbabazi (Civil Application 3 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2016] UGSC 37 · 2016 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in a pending presidential election petition.
Decision
Application for leave to appear as amici curiae disallowed; no order as to costs.

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 the application by eight civil society organisations for leave to appear as amici curiae in the 2016 presidential election petition. The Court held that the practice of amicus curiae is increasingly entrenched and, departing from its earlier decision in Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel Ltd under Article 132(4) of the Constitution, an amicus need not appear only at the Court's invitation. However, an amicus must possess valuable legal expertise (not mere general expertise), be neutral, raise novel points of law and file material the Court can assess. The applicants, election observers whose reports made disputed findings of fact, lacked legal expertise, risked prejudicing parties through untested evidence, and identified no intended brief or novel points of law.

Facts

Eight civil society organisations, accredited by the Electoral Commission as election observers for the 2016 general election, applied for leave to be admitted as amici curiae in Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016 brought by Amama Mbabazi against Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the Electoral Commission and the Attorney General. They sought to file written submissions to assist the Court, asserting valuable expertise from their observation of the elections and a strong interest in the constitutional questions raised. The petitioner did not object, but all three respondents opposed the application, contending the applicants had no special legal expertise, sought to introduce evidence on disputed facts, were biased, and that the supporting deponent was related to a losing candidate. Only the first applicant had been accredited as an observer, and some applicants had published material described as prejudicial to the respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant civil society organisations should be admitted to join Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016 as amici curiae.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appear as amici curiae is disallowed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Criteria for Admission
A person seeking admission as amicus curiae must possess valuable expertise in the relevant area of law (general expertise in law not sufficing), be neutral and impartial, confine submissions to focused points of law that assist the court, and ideally canvass novel points of law to aid the development of jurisprudence; participation lies entirely within the court's discretion.
Constitutional Law — Supreme Court — Departure from Previous Decisions
Under Article 132(4) of the Constitution the Supreme Court may depart from its previous decisions where it deems it right to do so; the rule in Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel Ltd, that an amicus curiae may appear only at the invitation of the court and not on a party's application, is no longer good law.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Neutrality, Bias and Fresh Evidence
An amicus curiae must be neutral and impartial and may not introduce new or fresh evidence; where a party alleges the proposed amicus is biased or partisan, or the applicant's previous conduct appears partisan on an issue before the court, the court will hear the parties on the objection.
Electoral Law — Election Observers — Disputed Findings of Fact
Election observers whose reports make findings of fact central to the matters in dispute in an election petition cannot properly be admitted as amici curiae, because their admission would prejudice the parties, who would have no opportunity to cross-examine them on those findings.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Burden on Applicant and Judicial Discretion
The court's discretion to admit an amicus curiae must be exercised judicially on material placed before it by the applicant; where the applicant neither files an intended brief nor identifies the novel points of law it would address, the court cannot assess the proposed intervention and will refuse the application.

Legislation cited (16)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.1(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.3(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.104(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.132(4)
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, S.I. No. 13 of 2001, r.15
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules S.I. 13-11, r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules S.I. 13-11, r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules S.I. 13-11, r.43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules S.I. 13-11, r.47(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules S.I. 13-11, r.51
  • Judicature Act s.14
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.39(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1989)
  • Edward Frederick Sempebwa v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 1986)
  • NSSF and Another v ALCON International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Uganda v Thomas Kwoyelo (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • Secretariat of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS v Human Rights Awareness Promotion Forum (HRAPF) and Attorney General of Uganda (Application No. 3 of 2015)
  • East African Health Development Initiative (Rwanda) v Human Rights Awareness Promotion Forum (HRAPF) and Attorney General of Uganda (Applications No. 20 and 21 of 2015)
  • Dr Ally Possi (Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria) v Human Rights Awareness Promotion Forum (HRAPF) and Attorney General of Uganda (Application No. 7 of 2015)
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.