Wakilii

Lukwago v Attorney General & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 362 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 13 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application challenging judicial recusal sought by Attorney General in ongoing judicial review proceedings concerning removal of Lord Mayor
Decision
Attorney General's recusal application dismissed; judge to continue hearing the main judicial review 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 High Court dismissed the Attorney General's application for judicial recusal. The court held that the judge's directive to the Deputy Registrar to consider an exparte application in order to preserve the effectiveness of a scheduled hearing did not constitute evidence of bias or partiality. The directive was made pursuant to the court's power under Order 52 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to prevent irreparable mischief. The Attorney General failed to adduce proof establishing actual bias, and a mere suggestion of disqualification is insufficient to warrant recusal.

Outcome

Attorney General's recusal application dismissed; judge to continue hearing the main judicial review application

Facts

The Lord Mayor of Kampala faced removal proceedings before a tribunal established by the Minister responsible for Kampala. The Lord Mayor filed Misc Cause No. 362 of 2013 seeking judicial review. On 25 November 2013, the Minister scheduled a statutory meeting to vote on the Lord Mayor's removal for 9:00 am, while the applicant's injunction application was set for hearing at 10:00 am before Justice Nyanzi Yasin. At 8:15 am, the Deputy Registrar sought the judge's guidance on an exparte application filed by the applicant to prevent the 9:00 am meeting. The judge directed the Deputy Registrar to consider the exparte matter to allow time for the 10:00 am hearing, citing the need to protect the integrity of courts. The Attorney General subsequently sought the judge's recusal, arguing that the directive left the Deputy Registrar no option and demonstrated predetermination and partiality. The Attorney General also contended that the judge's reference to protecting judicial integrity was inappropriate as no attack on courts had been raised by the parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the Attorney General established sufficient grounds for the judge to disqualify himself from hearing the main application on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias.
  2. Whether the judge's directive to the Deputy Registrar regarding Misc Application No. 454 of 2013 demonstrated partiality or predetermined the outcome of the case.
  3. Whether the judge's reference to protecting the integrity of courts demonstrated bias where no attack on judicial integrity had been raised by the parties.

Orders

  • Application for recusal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.
  • Main application to proceed as previously arranged.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Recusal — Test for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias — Burden of Proof
A litigant seeking judicial recusal must adduce proof of the truth of the allegations of bias, and the judge must decide as to the sufficiency of such proof. A mere suggestion that the court is disqualified to sit is not sufficient, and it is improper for a judge to disqualify himself unless the alleged cause is known to exist or shown by proof to be true in fact.
Exparte Orders — Judicial Power to Grant Relief Without Notice — Order 52 Rule 2
Where the court is satisfied that delay caused by proceeding in the ordinary way would or might entail irreparable or serious mischief, the court has power under Order 52 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to make an order exparte. A judge's exercise of this discretion to prevent mischief does not constitute bias or partiality.
Judicial Recusal — Litigants' Right to Choose Judicial Officer
Litigants have no right to choose which judicial officer should hear and determine their cases. While litigants may apply for recusal where there is reasonable apprehension of impartiality, this does not give them the right to object merely because they believe a particular judge will be less likely to decide in their favour.
Judicial Independence — Duty to Resist Pressure and Intimidation
Judicial officers are required to administer justice to all persons alike without fear, favour or prejudice in accordance with the constitution and the law. They must resist all manner of pressure regardless of where it comes from. Political discontent or dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case is no justification for recklessly attacking the integrity of judicial officers.
Judicial Review — Deputy Registrar's Jurisdiction — Judicial Review Rules
Under the Judicial Review Rules SI No. 11 of 2009 Rule 9(1), a Registrar of Court has no jurisdiction over judicial review matters unless directed by the judge. Where a judge directs a Deputy Registrar to consider an exparte matter, the directive carries the same effect as an order the judge would have made personally.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (12)

  • Attorney General v Anyang'Nyongo [2007] 1 EA 12
  • GM Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2000)
  • Shell (U) Ltd & 9 Others v Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd & 2 Others (Misc Application No. 645 of 2010)
  • Meera Investments Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2007)
  • Uganda Polybags Ltd v Development Finance Co. Ltd & 3 Others (Misc Application No. 02 of 2003)
  • Metropolitan Property Ltd v Lannon [1969] 1 QB 571
  • Tinyefunza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1997)
  • GM Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2000)
  • Baleke Kayira Peter & 4 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 179 of 2002)
  • Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451
  • THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC & 2 ORS Vs SOUTH AFRICA RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION & 3 ORS
  • CARTE - ARTIS CASE 1981

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukwago v Attorney General & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 362 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 13 (4 February 2014)
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.