Wakilii

Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) (Revision Application No. 002 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 24 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for recusal of the presiding judge in a criminal revision application
Decision
Application for recusal dismissed; presiding judge to continue hearing the revision 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 court denied the application for recusal. The applicant alleged apparent bias based on the judge's earlier ruling that a prima facie case for staying criminal proceedings had not been established. The court held that the presumption of judicial impartiality had not been displaced by cogent evidence. Critical examination of evidence and legal submissions in determining whether a prima facie case exists is an inherent part of the judicial function and does not constitute apparent bias. A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there was a real possibility of bias.

Outcome

Application for recusal dismissed; presiding judge to continue hearing the revision application

Facts

The applicant, Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde, was subject to a private prosecution in Criminal Case No. 913 of 2024 at Buganda Road Chief Magistrate's Court. He filed a revision application (Revision Application No. 002 of 2025) in the High Court. On 10 April 2025, the High Court issued orders staying the magistrate's court proceedings pending determination of the revision and directing parties to file submissions. The applicant did not comply with the filing deadlines. After being granted an extension, he filed a letter requesting the presiding judge to recuse himself, alleging apparent bias. The basis for the recusal request was the judge's earlier ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 0030 of 2025, in which the judge concluded that a prima facie case had largely not been established for a stay of criminal proceedings pending revision.

Issues

  1. Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself from hearing the criminal revision application on grounds of apparent bias.

Orders

  • Application for recusal denied.

Rules and key headnotes

Recusal — Presumption of Judicial Impartiality — Burden of Proof
Judges are presumed to be impartial when ruling on issues before them. This presumption flows from the Constitution and the judicial oath. The presumption can only be displaced by cogent evidence that demonstrates something the judicial officer has done which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The burden of establishing apprehended bias rests on the party alleging it.
Recusal — Double Reasonability Test — Fair-Minded Observer
The test for recusal requires that the person considering the alleged bias must be reasonable and the apprehension of bias itself must be reasonable in the circumstances. The question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judicial officer was biased. A fair-minded observer is one who reserves judgement until both sides are apparent, is not unduly sensitive or suspicious, knows that judges have weaknesses, and will inform themselves on all relevant matters.
Recusal — Judicial Function — Critical Examination of Evidence
The judicial process inherently involves scrutinising claims and defences presented by parties. A judge's role requires analysing evidence, applying relevant law, and reaching conclusions based on facts and law. Critical examination and evaluation of claims, including assessment of whether a prima facie case exists, is a fundamental part of the judicial function and does not constitute apparent bias. A judge must demonstrate the reasoning that leads to a conclusion by connecting evidence, facts, and law.
Judicial Conduct — Impartiality — Constitutional and Ethical Duties
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of judicial office and applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. Impartiality must exist both as a matter of fact and as a matter of reasonable perception. Judicial officers who demonstrate bias or conduct that undermines impartiality violate their constitutional and ethical duties. Recusal acts as a safeguard preserving the integrity of the judicial process and maintaining public trust.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Bernert v ABSA Bank Ltd (2011) 3 SA 92 (CC)
  • Almazeedi v Penner and another [2018] UKPC 3
  • Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62
  • Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board [1978] 1 SCR 369
  • Valente v The Queen [1985] 2 SCR 673
  • Taylor Ventures Ltd (Trustees of) v Taylor [2005] BCCA 350
  • Bossé v Lavigne [2015] NBCA 54

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) (Revision Application No. 002 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 24 (18 June 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.