Wakilii

Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade & Development & Another v Vassiliads (Civil Appeal 9 of 1985)

Court of Appeal · [1986] UGCA 23 · 1986 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 84 of 1983
Decision
Appeal allowed; matter ordered to be retried before another judge.

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 of Appeal held it has jurisdiction to determine, on appeal, whether a trial judge's infirmity or misconduct denied a party a fair trial. On the facts, the allegation of bias was mere conjecture unsupported by reasonable evidence, and the appellants ought to have raised any objection at trial. However, the trial judge's intervention during cross-examination of the respondent, which caused appellants' counsel to withdraw and the case to proceed ex parte, meant the trial was not conducted satisfactorily and the appellants did not have a fair hearing. Because insufficient primary facts had been elicited, the appeal was allowed and a retrial before another judge was ordered.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; matter ordered to be retried before another judge.

Facts

The respondent sued the appellants in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 84 of 1983). During the trial, after the respondent had been examined in chief and while being cross-examined by the first appellant's counsel, Mr. Kulumba-Kiingi, the trial judge intervened to give counsel a "dressing down" for being provocative and rude, though the record contained no note of the offending remark or to whom it was directed. As a result, counsel withdrew from the case. Although a two-week adjournment was granted to enable the appellants to engage another advocate, the appellants did not return and the case proceeded ex parte. An advocate who had been a witness in the case reportedly conceived that there was bias against the appellants and raised complaints outside the court, leading to meetings involving another judge. The appellants appealed, alleging the trial judge's mental illness, misconduct and bias denied them a fair trial and sought a fresh trial before another judge.

Issues

  1. Whether counsel's own affidavit disclosing matters not on the record could be admitted on appeal.
  2. Whether this court has jurisdiction to inquire into a trial judge's alleged infirmity or misconduct where it is said to have denied a party a fair trial.
  3. Whether the trial judge was biased against the appellants so as to deny them a fair trial.
  4. Whether the trial judge's misconduct, in particular excessive intervention and striking too soon during cross-examination, denied the appellants a fair trial and warranted a retrial.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Retrial ordered before another judge.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Additional Evidence — Counsel's Affidavit and Notes
An affidavit by counsel disclosing matters not contained in the judge's record cannot be included as part of the record of appeal in breach of the rules; the proper course is to apply for leave to adduce additional evidence under the applicable rule.
Right to a Fair Trial — Appellate Jurisdiction over Judicial Misconduct
Where it is alleged on appeal that a trial judge's infirmity or misconduct denied a party a fair trial, the appellate court has jurisdiction to determine the matter, since the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing forms part of the foundation of the administration of justice.
Bias — Real Likelihood Test
Bias is established only where there is reasonable evidence of a real likelihood of bias, judged by the impression given to reasonable persons; mere surmise or conjecture is insufficient, and a party who accepts a judge's jurisdiction and does not object at trial cannot later found an appeal on bias.
Fair Trial — Excessive Judicial Intervention in Cross-Examination
Excessive or ill-timed intervention by a trial judge that prevents a party from putting forward its case and results in insufficient primary facts being elicited denies that party a fair trial and justifies an order for a new trial before another judge.
Prejudgment — Party Refusing to Continue with Trial
A party who refuses to continue with a trial on the ground of the judge's alleged prejudgment bears a heavy onus to satisfy the appellate court that continuation would genuinely have been futile.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (21)

  • Ex parte Firth (1882) 19 Ch. D.419
  • Parkinson v. Parkinson (1942) 61 T.L.R. 439
  • Thomson v. Andrews (1968) WLR 778
  • Metropolitan Properties Co. F.G.C. Ltd. v. Lannon (1959) 1 QB 577
  • R.V. Justices of Queens Court (1908) 2 IR 282
  • Tumaini v. Republic (1972) E.A. 441
  • Serjeant v. Dale (1895) 1 QB 561
  • Reg. v. Camborne Justices Ex parte Pearce (1955) 1 QB 41
  • R. v. Nailsworth Licensing Justices ex parte Bird (1953) 1 WLR 1046, (1953) 2 All E.R. 652
  • R. v. Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256 at p. 259
  • Lord Mayor & Co. of Leeds v. Ryder and others (1907) A.C. 420 at p. 424
  • Brassington v. Brassington (1961) 2 All E.R. 988 at p. 990
  • Badcock v. Hunt, The Times March 15, 1960
  • Jones v. National Coal Board (1957) 2 QB 55
  • Patel v. Joshi (1952) 19 E.A.C.A. 42
  • Fletcher v. London & North Western Railway Co. (1892) 1 QB 122
  • Allen v. Francis (1914) 3 KB 1065
  • Patehali Waaji v. Republic (1955) E.A.
  • R.v. Huggins (1895) 1 QB 563
  • Ex parte Lloyd (1822) Mont 70, 72n
  • Yuill v. Yuill (1945) Page 15, 61 T.L.R. 176, (1945) 1 All E.R. 183

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade & Development & Another v Vassiliads (Civil Appeal 9 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 23 (12 June 1986)
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.