Wakilii

Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 71 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for recusal of judicial officer arising from ongoing proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed; judge to proceed with pending ruling

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 dismissed the application for recusal. The applicant failed to establish any factual basis for actual, imputed, or apparent bias under Rule 7 of the Recusal Practice Directions. The fact that the applicant lost multiple applications before the same judge does not constitute evidence of bias. Allegations of personal vendetta were speculative and unsupported by evidence. A judicial officer's oath to act impartially is not displaced by a party's subjective dissatisfaction with unfavourable rulings.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judge to proceed with pending ruling

Facts

The applicant brought an application by letter seeking the recusal of Justice Boniface Wamala from hearing his matters arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021 and requesting that a pending ruling be arrested. The applicant expressed dissatisfaction with how the judge handled his matters, alleging that all decisions had been against him. He claimed the judge appeared to have a personal vendetta against him and was an extension of Justice Musa Ssekaana, who had previously handled cases leading to the applicant's committal to prison for contempt of court. The applicant wrongly invoked Rule 6 of the Recusal Practice Directions, which applies only where a judicial officer recuses on their own motion, when Rule 7 governing party-initiated recusal applications was applicable.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should recuse itself from hearing the applicant's matters on grounds of alleged bias or lack of impartiality.
  2. Whether the applicant properly invoked the applicable provisions of the Recusal Practice Directions.
  3. Whether the applicant established any of the circumstances under Rule 7 of the Recusal Practice Directions warranting recusal.

Orders

  • Application for recusal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Legal Framework and Applicable Provisions
An application for recusal by a party must be brought under Rule 7 of the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No. 7 of 2019, not Rule 6, which applies only where a judicial officer recuses on their own motion.
Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Grounds for Recusal at Instance of Party
Under Rule 7 of the Recusal Practice Directions, a party may apply for recusal where the judicial officer has an interest or relationship with interested persons; has background information or prior work as a lawyer; has personal knowledge of parties or facts; has ex parte communications; makes inappropriate comments or exhibits unacceptable conduct; or has exhibited actual, imputed or apparent bias.
Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Seriousness and Burden of Proof
An application for recusal is not a light matter and should not be made as a routine. A judicial officer takes an oath to do justice impartially without fear, favour, affection or ill will, an oath that raises the judge above ordinary personal feelings to a higher calling. The party seeking recusal bears the burden of proving the circumstances warranting recusal.
Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Definition of Bias
Bias means inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group in a way considered unfair, whether actual, imputed or apparent. Actual bias is a state of mind leading to an inference of non-impartiality. Imputed bias exists where a judicial officer has a pecuniary, proprietary or personal interest in the decision. Apparent bias arises where a judicial officer's conduct or behaviour gives rise to suspicion of partiality despite having no interest in the outcome.
Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Adverse Rulings Not Evidence of Bias
The fact that a party loses multiple applications before the same judge, even repetitively, does not constitute evidence of bias. Whether decisions favour or disfavour a party depends on the nature of the applications, the law and the facts. Baseless allegations of personal vendetta cannot impeach a court's impartiality without supporting facts.
Civil Procedure — Recusal of Judicial Officers — Perception of Justice Must Be Objective
The principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done cannot be restricted to one party's perception. Both parties and other independent observers must be considered when determining whether justice is done and is seen to be done. Restricting the principle to one party's subjective perception would occasion a miscarriage of justice and water down judicial practice.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Republic v Raphael Muoki Kalungu (High Court Criminal Case No. 77 of 2014)
  • Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General and Lukwago Erias & Others v Electoral Commission & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause Nos. 237 & 431 of 2019)
  • [2000] 1 All ER 64

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 71 (1 April 2022)
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.