Wakilii

Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Another v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 282 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 32 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for recusal of trial judge in criminal proceedings arising from Nakawa Court Case No. 08 of 2025
Decision
Application for recusal dismissed; matter to proceed before the same judge

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed an application for judicial recusal brought by two accused persons who alleged bias based on delay in scheduling their bail application and the dismissal of a prior mandatory bail application. Applying the reasonable apprehension of bias test, the court held that neither the delay (which resulted from a first-in-first-out case management system following the judge's transfer) nor the dismissal of the bail application on its merits constituted reasonable grounds for apprehending bias. The court emphasised that parties have no right to forum-shop for judges and that unfounded apprehensions cannot justify recusal.

Outcome

Application for recusal dismissed; matter to proceed before the same judge

Facts

The applicants were charged in Nakawa Court Case No. 08 of 2025 and filed Criminal Application No. 282 of 2025 in the High Court on 22nd April 2025. The application was allocated to Justice Baguma on 28th April 2025 following his transfer from the Civil Division. No hearing date was fixed until 6th August 2025. During this period, having spent more than 180 days on remand, the applicants filed a separate application (MA No. 399 of 2025) for mandatory bail, which was heard and dismissed by Justice Baguma on 8th August 2025. When the matter came up for directions on 15th August 2025, counsel for the applicants raised concerns of bias and requested recusal. The judge directed counsel to file written reasons, which were submitted by letter dated 15th August 2025, citing two grounds: prolonged delay in fixing the application and the dismissal of the mandatory bail application.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge should recuse himself on grounds of alleged bias arising from prolonged delay in fixing the application for hearing.
  2. Whether the trial judge should recuse himself on grounds of alleged bias arising from the dismissal of the applicants' application for mandatory bail.

Orders

  • Application for recusal dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Counsel for the applicants directed to appear for scheduling and directions on 26th August 2025 at 11:00am.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Recusal — Test for Bias — Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
The test for judicial recusal on grounds of bias is whether a reasonable, objective and informed observer, having considered all the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. The apprehension of bias must be reasonable in the circumstances of the case; unfounded or unreasonable apprehension can never justify recusal.
Judicial Recusal — Delay in Case Management — Not Evidence of Bias
Delay in fixing a hearing date arising from a court's case management system operating on a first-in-first-out basis does not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias, particularly where the delay results from administrative factors such as a judge's transfer between divisions.
Judicial Recusal — Adverse Ruling — Not Ground for Recusal
The dismissal of an application on its merits based on the facts and the law does not constitute bias or provide grounds for judicial recusal. A party's dissatisfaction with an adverse ruling is not evidence of judicial bias.
Natural Justice — Forum Shopping — No Right to Choose Judge
Parties have no right to forum-shop and choose which judge should or should not hear their cases. The principle of natural justice does not extend to allowing litigants to select their preferred adjudicator.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions 2019 rule 7
  • Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions 2019 rule 4
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28

Cases cited (5)

  • Male Mabirizi v Kabaka of Buganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018)
  • Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
  • Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No.2) [2001] 1 WLR 700
  • The President of the Republic of South Africa & Others v South African Rugby Football Union & Others
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Application No. 31 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Another v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 282 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 32 (19 August 2025)
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.