[2000] UGSC 13

[2000] UGSC 13

The Supreme Court held that the application for leave to appeal was without merit. The alleged bias or likelihood of bias against Justice Twinomujuni was not substantiated, and the objection was not principled, especially as no similar objection was raised against another judge who participated in the same earlier decision. The Court reaffirmed that the discretion to disqualify lies solely with the judge concerned, and it is improper for other members of the coram to determine such issues. Furthermore, the Court found that the intended appeal was not against a decision of the Constitutional Court but rather against a decision of a single judge, which falls outside the jurisdiction...

Citation
[2000] UGSC 13
Parties
Applicant: Uganda Polybags Ltd; Respondent: Development Finance Company (U) Ltd; Respondent: Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd; Respondent: Christopher Homby; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
8 August 2000
Case Number
Civil Application 2 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Bias, Leave to Appeal, Natural Justice, Constitutional Interpretation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Judicial Bias Leave to Appeal Natural Justice Constitutional Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Polybags Ltd

Applicant

Development Finance Company (U) Ltd

Respondent

Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd

Respondent

Christopher Homby

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Justice Twinomujuni should have disqualified himself from the coram due to alleged bias or likelihood of bias.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against the decision of a single judge of the Constitutional Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's intended appeal falls within the scope of Article 132 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the application for leave to appeal was without merit. The alleged bias or likelihood of bias against Justice Twinomujuni was not substantiated, and the objection was not principled, especially as no similar objection was raised against another judge who participated in the same earlier decision. The Court reaffirmed that the discretion to disqualify lies solely with the judge concerned, and it is improper for other members of the coram to determine such issues. Furthermore, the Court found that the intended appeal was not against a decision of the Constitutional Court but rather against a decision of a single judge, which falls outside the jurisdiction...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.