Share
Tumushabe v Torres Advanced Enterprises (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 157 of 2021) [2022] UGIC 88 (2 December 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGIC 88
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Tumusiime-Mugisha, J, Mubuuke, Panel Member, Mugambwa, Panel Member, Ebyau, Panel Member
- Case number
- Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 157 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Tumusiime-Mugisha, J, Mubuuke, Panel Member, Mugambwa, Panel Member, Ebyau, Panel Member
- Case number
- Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 157 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The judge determined that her prior participation in mediation discussions that led to the resolution of the dispute between the parties could create a perception of partiality if she were to preside over the current application. In accordance with constitutional and ethical requirements for judicial impartiality, and the mandatory recusal provisions in the Code of Conduct and Practice Directions, she found it necessary to recuse herself from the proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure a fair hearing.
Court disposition
Judge recused herself from the proceedings.
Orders
- The presiding judge refrains from participating in the proceedings and notifies the parties accordingly.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tumushabe Ale
ApplicantTorres Advanced Enterprises
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Settlement Amount Paid to Applicant: UGX 1,500,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Recusal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the presiding judge should recuse herself from hearing the application due to prior involvement in mediation discussions between the parties.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not make a formal argument for recusal; the issue was raised by the judge on her own motion due to her prior participation in mediation discussions that resolved the dispute.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not make a formal argument regarding recusal; the judge acted suo motu to address the potential perception of partiality.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 28 of the Constitution of Uganda; United Nations Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct; Principal 2.1 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers; paragraph 6(1) of The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019.
A judicial officer must exercise impartiality and recuse themselves where they have personal knowledge of disputed facts or prior involvement that may create a perception of partiality.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The judge determined that her prior participation in mediation discussions that led to the resolution of the dispute between the parties could create a perception of partiality if she were to preside over the current application. In accordance with constitutional and ethical requirements for judicial impartiality, and the mandatory recusal provisions in the Code of Conduct and Practice Directions, she found it necessary to recuse herself from the proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure a fair hearing.
Obiter and limits
- Judicial officers must be vigilant in avoiding not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
Court disposition
Judge recused herself from the proceedings.
- The presiding judge refrains from participating in the proceedings and notifies the parties accordingly.
Source and reliance status
Industrial Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Industrial Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
LABOUR DISPUTE MISC. APPN. No.157 OF 2021
ARISING FROM LABOUR DISPUTE REFERENCE NO 281/2019
TUMUSHABE ALE^ APPLICANT
io VERSUS
TORRES ADVANCED ENTERPRISES RESPONDENT
BEFORE:
5
. THE HON. AG. HEAD JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSIIME MUGISHA O PANELISTS
<sup>1</sup> MR. FX MUBUUKE
2. MS. HARRIET MUGAMBWA NGANZI
3. MR. EBYAU FIDEL
RULING ON RECUSAL
20 The Labour Dispute Reference No. 281 of 2019 form which this application arises, was mediated by a court annexed mediator. It was later brought to His Lordship Hon. Justice Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye the Head Judge Emeritus's Chambers for conclusion and I was invited to participate in the discussions and during the discussion it was established that, the parties had amicably resolved the matter between them, on 9/06/2019. In fact the 25 Applicant was paid Ugx. 1,500,000/=
One ofthe core principles underpinning the Administration ofJustice by a Judicial officer is the exercise of impartiality, (see *United Nations Bangalore Principles on Judicial*
1
*Conduct).* Article 28 ofthe Constitution provides for the fundamental right of every citizen of Uganda to be accorded a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Principal 2.1 ofthe Code of conduct for Judicial officers, provides for mandatory recusal where a judicial officer has personal knowledge of the disputed facts concerning the proceedings.
35 Accordingly, of my own motion and volition and in conformity with the provisions of paragraph 6(1) of The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019, having participated in the discussions that concluded the mediation between the parties, I may create a perception of partiality if I presided over this application. In the circumstances, I hereby refrain from participating in these proceedings. In keeping with paragraph 3(a) ofthe Directions, the parties are hereby notified.
40 Delivered and signed by:
THE HON. AG. HEAD JUDGE, LINDA LILLIAN TUMUSIIME MUGISHA .
PANELISTS
30
<sup>1</sup> MR. FX MUBUUKE
2. MS. HARRIET MUGAMBWA NGANZI
<sup>45</sup> 3. MR. EBYAU FIDEL
DATE: 2/12/2022
2
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.