Wakilii

Asha Chand V Attorney General (Civil Suit No.693 92)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 4 · 1994 Application Granted — Recusal Ordered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial recusal arising from preliminary objection in civil suit concerning property repossession under the Expropriated Property Act
Decision
Matter referred to another judge for hearing of joinder application

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court granted the application for judicial recusal. Although the judge found he had expressed no view on the substantive appeal and his earlier ruling addressed only locus standi, he disqualified himself on the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done where counsel expressed lack of confidence in the judge's ability to preside impartially over the application.

Outcome

Matter referred to another judge for hearing of joinder application

Facts

The plaintiff Asha Chand filed suit against the Attorney General challenging the Minister of Finance's refusal to grant repossession of property under the Expropriated Property Act. During initial proceedings, counsel for one Hannah Kiwanuka (later identified as Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka) sought adjournment to join their client as a party. The judge refused the adjournment, ruling that Kiwanuka had no locus standi as she was not aggrieved by the Minister's decision. When a formal joinder application was subsequently filed, counsel for the applicant raised a preliminary objection seeking the judge's recusal, arguing that the earlier ruling on locus standi created an appearance that the judge had prejudged the joinder application. Meanwhile, the Attorney General and Custodian Board conceded the plaintiff's claim and issued a certificate of repossession, though the appeal had not been formally withdrawn or heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the judge should disqualify himself from hearing the application for joinder on grounds that his earlier ruling created an apprehension of bias or prejudgment of the substantive issues.

Orders

  • Judge disqualified himself from handling the application.
  • File to be passed to the Principal Judge/Deputy Principal Registrar for allocation to a new judge.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judicial Recusal — Test for Disqualification — Apprehension of Bias
A judge should disqualify himself from hearing a matter where counsel expresses lack of confidence in the judge's ability to preside impartially, even where the judge has no actual interest in the matter and has not expressed views on the substantive merits, on the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Duty to Hear — Concession by Opposing Party
Where a party seeks to be joined to proceedings, the court should not deny that party an opportunity to be heard on the application even where the main suit parties have reached a concession or settlement, as the administration of justice requires that disputes be investigated and decided on their merits and errors should not debar a litigant from pursuit of their rights.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Expropriated Property Act No. 9 of 1982 s.14
  • Expropriated Property Act (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 11.9/83 No.6 Regulation 15

Cases cited (2)

  • Unch 1977 HCB 121
  • Essaj Vs Solanti 1968 EA P

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Asha Chand V Attorney General (Civil Suit No.693_92) [1994] UGHC 4 (19 January 1994)
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.