Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Nantale and Another (Civil Appeal 25 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 17 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal (which had upheld a High Court award of pension benefits and added general damages and interest)
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal (general damages and interest in favour of the respondents) upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 Bank of Uganda's appeal against a Court of Appeal award of general damages and interest to former employees over unpaid pension benefits. It held that the recusal of a Justice of Appeal cannot be raised for the first time on a later appeal: under the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) Directions 2019 an application must be made before that judge during the hearing so he may respond. Because general damages for breach of contract were pleaded, the Court of Appeal had a duty to address them and, exercising first-appellate powers under Judicature Act s.11, could award them without a cross-appeal. Interest at 8% per annum was within the court's discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.26(2).

Facts

The respondents, former employees of Bank of Uganda, filed HCCS No. 132 of 2001 seeking recovery of pension benefits, gratuity and arrears accruing from April 1995, or alternatively a declaration of entitlement to pension and general damages for breach of contract. The High Court held they were entitled to pension benefits accrued as at April 1995 and awarded interest on those benefits. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Bank's appeal, maintained the High Court decision, and additionally awarded general damages equivalent to the pension benefit each respondent would have earned at their fiftieth birthday, with interest at 8% per annum from 1995 until payment in full. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that one Justice of Appeal (Madrama, JA) had displayed apparent bias and should have recused himself, and that the Court of Appeal had wrongly awarded unpleaded, unquantified general damages and interest without a cross-appeal having been filed.

Issues

  1. Whether a Justice of Appeal displayed apparent bias and ought to have recused himself, and whether an appellate court can hold that a judicial officer should have recused himself where no recusal application was made before him during the hearing.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding general damages allegedly neither pleaded nor canvassed by the parties.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal could award general damages in the respondents' favour where they had not filed a cross-appeal.
  4. Whether interest on general damages at 8% per annum from April 1995 was properly awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in this court and the courts below.
  • The judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal upheld.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Procedure for raising apparent bias
Under the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions 2019 recusal arises only where a judicial officer acts on his own motion or where a party applies before that officer during the hearing; there is no procedure for a later court to hold that a judicial officer should have recused himself, and a party who failed to raise recusal before the officer cannot raise it subsequently.
Civil Procedure — Natural Justice — Right of the judicial officer to be heard on allegations of bias
Allegations of bias against a judicial officer are personal in nature, and the rules of natural justice entitle the officer to an opportunity to respond to them before any finding is made; an application for recusal must therefore be made while the officer is still seized of the matter.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Court's duty to address pleaded matters
Where a matter is included in the pleadings the court has a right and a duty to address it, whether or not it was canvassed by counsel, particularly where the matter determines the rights and interests of the parties.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to re-evaluate evidence
A first appellate court is under a duty to re-hear the case by weighing the conflicting evidence and drawing its own inferences and conclusions, without disregarding the judgment appealed from.
Civil Procedure — Powers of the Court of Appeal — Award of damages without a cross-appeal
By virtue of Judicature Act s.11 the Court of Appeal exercises all the powers of the court of original jurisdiction, and may therefore award general damages that were pleaded without a cross-appeal having been filed.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Compensatory purpose and classification of loss
General damages are compensatory and aim to place the injured party in as good a position as if the wrong had not occurred; recognised heads of damage divide into pecuniary loss (financial and material loss capable of arithmetic calculation) and non-pecuniary loss (such as pain or injury to feelings).
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
Under Civil Procedure Act s.26(2) a court has discretion to award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable, the basis being that the defendant has kept the plaintiff from his money while having had the use of it.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.102(c)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.90(1)
  • Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions 2019 rr.5, 6(3), 7, 8

Cases cited (21)

  • R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256
  • Christopher Martin Madrama Izama v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2016)
  • R v Gough (1993) 2 All ER 724
  • R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2) (1999) 2 All ER 586
  • R v Inner West London Coroner, ex parte Dallaglio (1994) 4 All ER 39
  • Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon [1968] 3 All ER 304
  • Crane Bank Ltd v Belex Tours & Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Attorney General v Paul Ssemogerere & Zachary Olum (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
  • Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
  • Hotel International Ltd Vs the Administrator of the Estate of Robert Kavuma SCCA No.
  • Mohammed Mohammed v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • H Singh v SS Dhiman (1951) 18 EACA 75
  • Kengrow Industries Ltd v Chandran (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2001)
  • Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451
  • Obiga Kania v Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 3 of 2013)
  • Federation of Railway Officers Association v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa v Eric Kibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Active Automobile Spares Ltd v Crane Bank Ltd & Rajesh Patel (Civil Appeal No. 442 of 2003)
  • Luciano De Sancis vs Jack Wavamuno & North & South Co. (U) Ltd (2009) 1 HCB
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
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.