Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Reparelia and Another [2023] UGSC 40

Supreme Court · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's affirmation of a High Court judgment awarding pension benefits
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment and orders (including general damages and 8% interest) 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. On recusal, the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions 2019 require recusal either on the officer's own motion or on a party's application made to him during the hearing; a party who fails to raise bias before the judicial officer cannot raise it later on appeal, and the rules provide no procedure for another court to find that an officer should have recused himself. General damages for breach of contract were expressly pleaded in the plaint, so the matter was within the arena of the case and the Court of Appeal had a duty to address it. Under Judicature Act s.11 the first appellate court may award such damages without a cross-appeal. The interest ground was tacitly withdrawn.

Facts

The respondents, former employees of Bank of Uganda, sued the Bank in the High Court (HCCS No. 132 of 2001) to recover pension benefits, gratuity and arrears from April 1995, or alternatively a declaration of entitlement to pension and general damages for breach of contract. The High Court held the respondents were entitled to pension benefits accrued as at April 1995 and awarded interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Bank's appeal and additionally awarded general damages equivalent to the pension benefits each respondent would have earned by their fiftieth birthday in early retirement, with interest at 8% per annum from 1995 until payment in full. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging an alleged failure of a Justice of Appeal to recuse himself, the award of general damages said to be unpleaded and uncanvassed, the award absent a cross-appeal, and the interest award.

Issues

  1. Whether a Justice of Appeal who had been a victim of a retirement benefits scheme displayed apparent bias and should have recused himself, and whether such recusal can be raised for the first time on appeal.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding general damages that were allegedly neither pleaded nor canvassed by the parties.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal could award general damages in re-evaluating the evidence where the respondents had not filed a cross-appeal.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding interest on general damages at 8% per annum from April 1995 until payment in full.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Procedure under the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions 2019
Under the Recusal Directions 2019 a judicial officer recuses himself either on his own motion or on a party's application made during the pendency of the hearing; where a party fails to raise the matter of recusal before the judicial officer at the hearing, neither the Directions nor the principles of natural justice provide a procedure to raise it subsequently, and no court may determine that an officer ought to have recused himself but did not.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Duty of the court to address a matter pleaded though uncanvassed
Where a matter is included in the pleadings, the court has both a right and a duty to address it whether or not counsel canvassed it; a claim contained in the plaint cannot be treated as a fresh matter raised outside the pleadings.
Civil Procedure — Powers of the first appellate court — Award of pleaded damages without a cross-appeal
Under section 11 of the Judicature Act the Court of Appeal exercises the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the court of original jurisdiction, and may, on re-evaluating the evidence, award general damages that were pleaded without the respondents needing to file a cross-appeal.
Damages & Quantum — General damages — Compensatory purpose
General damages are compensatory in nature and are intended to put the injured party, so far as money can, in the position he or she would have occupied had the wrong complained of not occurred.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.102(c)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.90(1)
  • The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019 r.5
  • The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019 r.6(3)
  • The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019 r.7
  • The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019 r.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 & Anor (Election Petition No. 3 of 2013)
  • Federation of Railway Officers Association v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Kibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Active Automobile Spares Ltd v Crane Bank & 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.