Wakilii

Baku Raphael Obudura v Attorney General (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 109 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 97 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery and production of documents arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 264 of 2020
Decision
Application for discovery and production of documents dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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

Held that the High Court declined to order discovery of documents supplied in confidence by third parties to the Judicial Service Commission where disclosure would prejudice future supply of such information and the third parties had not consented. The court also declined to compel production of communications between the Judicial Service Commission and the President without written consent from the JSC Chairperson as required by the Judicial Service Act s.16. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for discovery and production of documents dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Applicant applied for judicial positions in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 he applied for Judge of the High Court and Justice of the Court of Appeal/Constitutional Court but was not shortlisted. In 2019 he applied for Justice of the Supreme Court and positions on the Leadership Code Tribunal and appeared for interviews. He alleged bias by panel members and lack of quorum. He requested interview proceedings and explanations for not being shortlisted in 2017 but the JSC Chairperson did not provide them. He filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 264 of 2020 for breach of fundamental rights and this application (MA No. 109 of 2021) seeking discovery of eleven categories of documents including nominations, shortlisting minutes, interview proceedings, communications with the Law Council and Uganda Law Society about his candidature, and recommendations to the President.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent should deliver the required documents to the Applicant.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Access to Information — Confidential Information from Third Parties — Prejudice to Future Supply
Under the Access to Information Act s.28(1)(b), an information officer may refuse access to records consisting of information supplied in confidence by a third party where disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of similar information and it is in the public interest that such information continue to be supplied.
Judicial Service Commission — Confidentiality of Third Party Information — Consent Requirement
Where the Judicial Service Commission receives confidential information from third parties such as the Law Council, Uganda Law Society, or a candidate's former employer for purposes of assessing judicial appointments, a court will not order disclosure of such information without the consent of the third parties, as disclosure would prejudice the future supply of information necessary for the JSC to execute its constitutional mandate.
Judicial Service Commission — Communications with the President — Statutory Privilege
Under the Judicial Service Act s.16, no person shall in any legal proceedings be permitted or compelled to produce or disclose any communication between the Judicial Service Commission and the President in the exercise of the Commission's functions unless the Chairperson of the JSC consents in writing to such production or disclosure.
Discovery — Protection Against Unreasonable Investigation — Bad Faith
A court is responsible for protecting against unreasonable investigation into a party's affairs and must deny discovery if it is intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress or injure the parties or witnesses who will be subjected to it, and will stop discovery when used in bad faith or if the information to be produced is privileged.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (3)

  • Spear Motors Ltd v Attorney General and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 692 of 2007)
  • Attorney General v David Tinyefuza (Court of Appeal No. 1 of 1991)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 912 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baku Raphael Obudura v Attorney General (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 109 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 97 (1 July 2021)
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.