Wakilii

Collaboration of International ICT Policy for East Southern Africa (CIPESA) 2 Others v Initiative for Social Economic Rights (ISER) Limited 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 650 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 389 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in underlying miscellaneous cause concerning digital identification and social protection rights
Decision
Applicants admitted as amici curiae in the main cause

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 applicants met all statutory requirements for admission as amici curiae under the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules. The court found the applicants were neutral and impartial despite previous involvement in related constitutional litigation, as their interest was promotion of human rights and fidelity to law rather than vested interest in the outcome. The court rejected objections that the applicants were introducing new evidence or fresh causes of action, finding they were advancing legal concepts within their expertise. The court found the points of law concerning data protection, digital inclusion and surveillance were novel and would aid jurisprudence development. Leave to intervene granted.

Outcome

Applicants admitted as amici curiae in the main cause

Facts

Three international human rights organizations (CIPESA, Access Now, and Article 19) applied for leave to intervene as amici curiae in Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2022. The underlying cause concerned Uganda's national digital identification system and its requirement that citizens provide national identification numbers to access SAGE social security benefits and public health services. The applicants claimed expertise in data protection, digital rights, privacy, and freedom of expression. The Attorney General and NIRA opposed on grounds the applicants were biased, lacked sufficient expertise, were introducing new evidence, and that their submissions were not novel. The first three respondents (ISER, Unwanted Witness, and Health Equity and Policy Initiative) did not oppose. The application was heard by written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for the Applicants to be granted leave to intervene as Amici Curiae?

Orders

  • The Applicants are granted leave to intervene as Amici Curiae in Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2022.
  • The joint amicus brief filed by the Applicants onto this application is adopted by the Court subject to the Applicants' right to make any necessary changes.
  • In case of any changes, the same shall be drawn to the attention of the Court and the parties' Counsel before the hearing of the main cause.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Test for Admission — Neutrality and Impartiality
An applicant for admission as amicus curiae satisfies the neutrality and impartiality requirement under rule 5(a) of the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules where they have no vested interest in the outcome and their interest is promotion of human rights and fidelity to law, notwithstanding that their submissions may favour one party's position if grounded in law and fact.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Previous Participation in Related Litigation — Effect on Impartiality
Previous participation by a proposed amicus curiae as an expert witness in related litigation against one of the parties does not constitute bias or partiality where the person was not an interested party in that matter and is not a potential beneficiary of the rights being litigated in the current matter.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Introduction of New Evidence — Distinction from Legal Concepts
The objection under rule 8(1)(b) of the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules that an applicant is introducing new evidence does not succeed where the matters raised by the applicant constitute legal concepts and points of law rather than matters of evidence, and where the court retains power to reject or expunge any inadmissible evidence introduced in an amicus brief.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Cross-Examination — Unavailability
An amicus curiae cannot be cross-examined as they do not come to court as a witness and the amicus brief must not introduce evidence; any claim of a right to cross-examine an amicus is made out of context and is misplaced.
Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Novelty Requirement — Definition
Under rule 5(c) of the Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules, novelty means the quality of being new, original, unfamiliar, unusual or unique, and is satisfied where the legal concepts advanced by the applicant concerning matters such as data protection, digital inclusion and surveillance are new or unfamiliar in the jurisprudence even where parties have not traversed those issues.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50(2)
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 4
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 5
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 6
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 8
  • Judicature (Amicus Curiae) Rules S.I No. 54 of 2022 rule 9

Cases cited (3)

  • Prof. Joe Oloka-Onyango & Others v Amama Mbabazi & Others (SC Civil Application No. 2 of 2016)
  • Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs Mumo Matemo & 5 Others, SC Civil Application No. 12 of 2013 (Kenya)
  • Cyber Law Initiative & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 26 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Collaboration of International ICT Policy for East Southern Africa (CIPESA) 2 Others v Initiative for Social Economic Rights (ISER) Limited 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 650 of 2022) 2023 UGHCCD 389 (24 March 2023)
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.