Bank of Uganda and Ors v Ham Enterprises Ltd (Civil Application No. 16 of 2021)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal declined to admit the Bank of Uganda as amicus curiae in the pending civil appeal. Applying the Supreme Court's principles from the Oloka Onyango case, the court held that an amicus curiae must be neutral and impartial and cannot be a party claiming to be adversely affected by the orders under challenge. Because the Bank averred a vested and sufficient interest and claimed the High Court orders adversely affected its statutory duties, its interest was that of an interested party, not a friend of the court. The application to appear as amicus was disallowed, with the Bank left free to apply to be joined as a party with sufficient interest.

Outcome

Application to be admitted as amicus curiae disallowed; applicant granted liberty to apply to be joined as an interested party.

Facts

The Bank of Uganda applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to be admitted as amicus curiae in Civil Appeal No 242 of 2020 (Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd and Diamond Trust Bank (K) Ltd v Ham Enterprises Ltd, Kiggs International (U) Ltd and Hamis Kiggundu), or in the alternative to intervene in that appeal. The Bank asserted that as the Central Bank and banking regulator with statutory responsibility to supervise financial institutions, it had a vested and sufficient interest in the appeal because the High Court's decisions had significant implications for the performance of its statutory duties. The Bank further averred that it was not afforded a hearing when the High Court made orders against it, and that those orders had adverse effects on its statutory functions. The application was supported by the affidavit of the Bank's legal counsel and was heard on the day the appeal came up for hearing.

Issues

1. Whether the Bank of Uganda, which claims to be adversely affected by the impugned orders, qualifies to be admitted as an amicus curiae in the pending appeal.
2. Whether the applicant's proper avenue is to seek to intervene and be joined as an interested party rather than as an amicus curiae.

Orders

• The application for leave to address the Court as amicus curiae in Civil Appeal No 242 of 2020 is disallowed with no order as to costs.
• The Applicant may file an application to be joined as a party, with authorities and submissions, served on the parties by 3rd February 2021.
• Parties to Civil Appeal No 242 of 2020 may file pleadings, authorities and submissions in reply by 10th February 2021.
• 17th February 2021 tentatively fixed for hearing of the application if filed as directed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Constitution of Uganda Article 161
• Constitution of Uganda Article 162
• Bank of Uganda Act s.4(1)
• Bank of Uganda Act s.4(2)(j)
• Bank of Uganda Act s.5
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 44
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 46

Cases cited (3)

• Re Oloka Onyango and 8 Others (Civil Application No. 2 of 2016)
• East African General Insurance Company Ltd v Madvani (Civil Application No. 12 of 2001)
• Gillooly v Gillooly [1950] 2 All ER 1118

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