Wakilii

Yekoyakimu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 2 of 1993)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 41 · 1994 Consent Order AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Objection by an appellant in person to a judge sitting on the panel hearing his civil appeal
Decision
By consent, the appeal directed to be heard by written submissions before a panel excluding Justice Tsekooko; judgment to follow on notice

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 appellant, appearing in person, objected to Justice Tsekooko sitting on the panel hearing his civil appeal, fearing he would not be impartial because of a prior dealing between them in Mbale. The court was not satisfied that Justice Tsekooko could not hear the appeal impartially. Nevertheless, in the interest of expediting completion of the appeal, and by consent of both parties, the court accommodated the appellant by having the appeal determined by a panel excluding Justice Tsekooko, on condition that the matter proceed by written submissions to a panel of Justices Oder, Platt and Odoki.

Outcome

By consent, the appeal directed to be heard by written submissions before a panel excluding Justice Tsekooko; judgment to follow on notice

Facts

When the civil appeal came up for hearing, the appellant, who appeared in person, objected to Justice Tsekooko sitting on the panel. He grounded the objection on a previous dealing he had had with the judge in Mbale, which led him to believe they were not on good terms, and he feared the judge would not be impartial. This was the second time the appellant had objected to a judge of the court sitting on his appeal; a prior objection to the Deputy Chief Justice had been overruled.

Issues

  1. Whether Justice Tsekooko should be excluded from the panel hearing the appeal on the ground of apprehended bias arising from a prior dealing with the appellant.

Orders

  • By consent, the appeal is to be determined by a panel excluding Justice Tsekooko, consisting of Justices Oder, Platt and Odoki.
  • The appeal is to proceed by written submissions.
  • The appellant to file written submissions within three weeks from the date of the ruling.
  • The respondent to file written submissions within seven days from the date of service of the appellant's submissions.
  • Judgment to be given on notice.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recusal — Apprehended Bias — Court's Discretion to Accommodate a Party
Although a court may not be satisfied that a judge is unable to hear an appeal impartially, it may, in the interest of expediting the completion of the matter and by consent of the parties, have the appeal determined by a panel excluding the judge objected to.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yekoyakimu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 2 of 1993) [1994] UGSC 41 (13 September 1994)
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.