Share
Yekoyakimu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 2 of 1993) [1994] UGSC 41 (13 September 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] UGSC 41
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Odoki, JSC, Oder, JSC, Tsekooko, JSC
- Case number
- Civil Appeal 2 of 1993
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Odoki, JSC, Oder, JSC, Tsekooko, JSC
- Case number
- Civil Appeal 2 of 1993
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found no sufficient evidence that Justice Tsekooko could not hear the appeal impartially. However, in the interest of expediting the completion of the appeal and accommodating the appellant's concerns, and with the consent of both parties, the court allowed the appeal to be determined by a panel excluding Justice Tsekooko. The court ordered that written submissions be filed by both parties, and the judgment would be delivered on notice. This approach balanced the need for impartiality, the appellant's apprehensions, and the efficient administration of justice.
Court disposition
Objection to Justice Tsekooko sitting on the panel allowed by consent; directions given for written submissions and reconstituted panel.
Orders
- Appellant to file written submissions within three weeks from the date of the order.
- Respondent to file written submissions within seven days from service of appellant's submissions.
- Judgment to be delivered on notice after consideration by the reconstituted panel.
02
Material facts
Parties
Yekoyakimu Mwima Hyabene
AppellantThe Attorney General
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Pre Hearing Objection to Panel Composition
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Justice Tsekooko should be disqualified from hearing the appeal due to alleged bias or previous dealings with the appellant.
- 02
Whether the appellant's objection to the composition of the panel is justified.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant, appearing in person, objected to Justice Tsekooko sitting on the panel, alleging prior dealings in Mbale that led to strained relations and a fear of partiality.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not oppose the proposed solution and consented to the reconstitution of the panel and the procedure for written submissions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Principle of natural justice and judicial impartiality
A judge may be recused from a case if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest.
- 02
Practice direction and inherent powers of the court
The court may accommodate parties' concerns to expedite proceedings, provided both parties consent to the procedure.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found no sufficient evidence that Justice Tsekooko could not hear the appeal impartially. However, in the interest of expediting the completion of the appeal and accommodating the appellant's concerns, and with the consent of both parties, the court allowed the appeal to be determined by a panel excluding Justice Tsekooko. The court ordered that written submissions be filed by both parties, and the judgment would be delivered on notice. This approach balanced the need for impartiality, the appellant's apprehensions, and the efficient administration of justice.
Obiter and limits
- This is the second time the appellant has objected to a judge of this court sitting in his appeal.
- Both parties agreed to the method of proceeding by written submissions before a reconstituted panel.
Court disposition
Objection to Justice Tsekooko sitting on the panel allowed by consent; directions given for written submissions and reconstituted panel.
- Appellant to file written submissions within three weeks from the date of the order.
- Respondent to file written submissions within seven days from service of appellant's submissions.
- Judgment to be delivered on notice after consideration by the reconstituted panel.
Source and reliance status
Supreme 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.
Supreme Court of Uganda
Judgment
IN THE SUPREI1E COURT OF UGANDA
AT MXNGO
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 1993
BETWEEN
YEKOYAKIMU MWIMA HYABENE APPELLANT
/
o
o
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENT
RULING OF THE COURT
When the appeal came up for hearing the appellant who appears ln person raised an objectlon agalnst Justlce Tsekooko sltting on the panel on grounds that he had previously had deallng wlth hlm ln Mbale which led hlm to behave that they were not on good terms. He therefore feared Justice Tsekooko ntght not be lnpartlal ln hearlng hls appeal.
Thls ls the second tlne the appellant has objected to a Judge of Ehis court sLttLng ln his appeal, He prevlously objected to the Deputy Chlef Justlce but we overruled his objectlon.
We are not satlsfled that Justice Tsekooko cannot hear thls appeal inpartlally. But in the lnterest of expedltlng the completlon of thls appeal, we are prepared to acconodate the appellant and have the appeal determlned by a panel excludlng Justlce Tsekooko. Thls ls belng alloved on condltion that wrltten subrnlssions be nade which shall be placed before <sup>a</sup> panel of Judges conslstln8 of Justlce oder, Justlce Platt and nyself. Both partles have agreed to this method of proceedlngs in thls appeal,
Accordlngly, by consent of the parties, lt ls ordered that the appellant flles Lrrltten subnlsslons wlthin three weeks from today and the reapondent wlthin seven days fron the date of servlce of the appellantrs subulsslons. Thereafter the JudgDent u111 be glven on notlce.
l,)
Dated at Mengo thls 13th day of Septenber 1994
aou
Balling B
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$
B. J. ODOKI<br>JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT
$\emptyset$
JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT
C $\overline{8}$
JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT
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.