Wakilii

Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (CRB-596-2022; HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023; KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025) 2026 UGHC 623 (2026-05-28)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 623 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for recusal of judicial officer in ongoing criminal trial
Decision
Application for recusal dismissed; matter to proceed to further hearing

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 declined to recuse itself from further conduct of the criminal matter. The court held that no valid grounds for recusal were raised under the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) Practice Directions 2019. Management of court proceedings and preservation of court decorum are within the judicial officer's discretion and form part of judicial independence. The court cannot recuse itself from concluded matters in which it is now functus officio. The applicant's right to a fair hearing had not been violated.

Outcome

Application for recusal dismissed; matter to proceed to further hearing

Facts

Kyagaba Charles, an accused person in CRB-596-2022, applied by letter on 25 May 2025 for the recusal of Justice Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere from handling his criminal trial. The applicant alleged hostility and intimidation, denial of full disclosure, loss of legal representation, being forced to cross-examine witnesses unrepresented, denial of certified copies of proceedings, limitation of his right to call defence witnesses, and continuous interruption of his lawyers. The application arose after the judge had delivered judgment in a related matter (KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025) on 15 May 2026. On 19 May 2026, the judge had exercised discretion to exclude an advocate from addressing court from the bar on the basis that the advocate was not introduced as counsel of record at commencement of proceedings. The judge examined the application under the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) Practice Directions 2019 and applicable constitutional provisions.

Issues

  1. Whether the judicial officer should recuse himself from conducting the criminal trial on grounds of alleged bias and unacceptable conduct.
  2. Whether the applicant's constitutional right to a fair hearing had been violated in concluded proceedings.
  3. Whether the judicial officer's management of court proceedings and control of court decorum constituted grounds for recusal.

Orders

  • No valid grounds for recusal have been raised.
  • Application for recusal dismissed.
  • The court declines to recuse itself from further conduct of this matter.
  • The court cannot recuse itself from matters not before it or from concluded matters.
  • Matter set down for further hearing in accordance with Section 8(4) of the Recusal Practice Directions.
  • Decision entered into the record of court.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Recusal — Application for Recusal — Grounds — Burden of Proof
A judicial officer considering an application for recusal must identify specific actionable grounds raised by the applicant under Section 7(1)(e) of the Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) Practice Directions 2019. Where no valid grounds are raised, the application must be dismissed.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Recusal — Functus Officio — Concluded Proceedings
A judicial officer cannot recuse himself from concluded proceedings in which judgment has been delivered and the court is now functus officio. Recusal is only applicable to current pending proceedings.
Administrative Law — Judicial Independence — Management of Court Proceedings — Court Decorum
Management of court proceedings and preservation of court decorum is the responsibility of the judicial officer and is an important aspect of judicial independence. The High Court has inherent powers under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act to prevent abuse of process and curtail delays in trials, including power to control conduct in court.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Right of Audience — Advocates — Court Decorum
Right of address in court is limited to advocates appearing in the matter and, where unrepresented, parties and the court itself. A judicial officer may exercise discretion to exclude from addressing court an advocate who was not introduced as counsel of record at commencement of proceedings.
Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Right to Copy of Proceedings — Article 28(6)
Under Article 28(6) of the Constitution, the right to a copy of proceedings is an entitlement after judgment is delivered to allow an accused person to prepare and effectively challenge the decision of the lower court. Administrative requests for certified copies of proceedings should be addressed to the Registrar.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (1)

  • Prof Isaac Newton Ojok v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1991)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (CRB-596-2022; HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023; KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025) 2026 UGHC 623 (2026-05-28)
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.