Tuesday, 18 February 2025

Address Conflicts between Judges and Lawyers for Peaceful Professional Co-existence

 By Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

bakampasenior@gmail.com; +256753124713

I learnt with great concern that on Friday, 14th February, 2025 High Court Judge, Justice Musa Ssekaana, sentenced the President of Uganda Law Society, Senior Counsel Isaac Ssemakadde, to two years imprisonment for contempt of court i.e. Justice Ssekaana himself.

First of all, I must declare my conflict of interest in this matter which somewhat complicates my detached and impartial discussion of these developments. The difficulty for me is that both Justice Ssekaana and Senior Counsel Ssemakadde are my friends. So, it is really difficult for me to choose one over the other in terms of either offering praise or leveling criticism. Therefore, whereas what I say is informed by events occurring between the two, I nevertheless speak generally, but not on and about these learned gentlemen per se. Suffice to say that one thing I know for sure is that both men are inherently good people who mean well and are out to do a good job in what they do.

Now, it should be known that there is a boiling conflict in the legal profession between judicial officers and lawyers, which explains the increasingly frequent and even public clashes between the bench and the bar. The misunderstandings come from the conduct and methods of work of the adjudicators and lawyers that members on either side find perverse, unacceptable and intolerable.

So, what or where is the problem? For lack of space, let me summarize it this way: there is shamelessness, extremism and uncouthness among judges and lawyers alike, causing erosion of civility and professionalism. On one hand are judges who make dubious and scandalous decisions with impunity. Many judicial officers today do not care how wrong and ridiculous their decisions are as long as the wishes/desires of their favorites are satisfied. On the other hand are lawyers who, annoyed and frustrated by judges, seek to hit back and punish the judges for their carelessness and insensitivity, in whichever way they can, usually (and increasingly) through public ridicule and scorn on social media. Many lawyers today are unduly disrespectful of their superiors. These are not the only causes and manifestations of the simmering conflict but they are the more prominent nowadays. For now the quarrel is still largely internal but sooner than later, if the causes are not addressed, the discontent will spill over to the general public and become a national crisis/disaster.

Unfortunately, the political and administrative class is either unwilling or unable to intervene and help streamline things by fairly holding offenders accountable to eliminate impunity. If wrongdoers can be detected and uprooted from the system, then discipline and order would prevail. But the regulators/overseers seem to have left it to the judges and lawyers to tussle it out, in a survival for the fittest fashion. This is a recipe for oppression, anarchy and lawlessness.

With all said and done, let us note that infighting in the profession is a luxury we cannot afford. We should all exercise self-restraint, remain civilized, courteous and above all aspire to do our jobs well as demanded by our noble profession. That way, conflicts will be sorted and not dangerously personalized. Going forward, I suggest that we have a joint meeting of judges and lawyers to frankly talk and iron out issues. Jesus’ question, “Can a house divided against itself stand?” aptly comes to mind here. I request the Chief Justice and Attorney General to lead us in reconciliation.

The writer is a lawyer and researcher.

Expression of Solidarity with the ICC in the Face of US Government Sanctions and Israeli Government Mudslinging

 BAKAMPA BRIAN BARYAGUMA

[Dip. Law (First Class)–LDC; Cert. PELD–NaLI-K; Cert. Oil & Gas–Mak; LLB (Hons)–Mak]

MOBILE: +256753124713 & +256772748300;

EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;

WEB ADDRESS: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;

Kampala, Uganda.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Sunday, 9th February, 2025.

To:

The President,

International Criminal Court,

PO Box 19519,

2500 CM, The Hague,

The Netherlands.

Your Excellency,

Re: Expression of Solidarity with the ICC in the Face of US Government Sanctions and Israeli Government Mudslinging

A universal renunciation of violence requires the commitment of the whole of society. These are not matters of government but matters of State; not only matters for the authorities, but for society in its entirety, including civilian, military, and religious bodies. The mobilization which is urgently needed to effect the transition … from a culture of war to a culture of peace demands co-operation from everyone. In order to change, the world needs everyone,” Federico Mayor, former Director-General of UNESCO.

Thank you for the good work you are doing for the world. God bless you.

The statement of Amb. Federico Mayor is both instructive and compelling, calling for action from the global public on matters of great international importance. Being a great supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it is in that spirit that I hereby contact your Excellency. As a matter of fact, this is the second time I am writing to you on matters of the Court. The first was in 2013 (vide my letter dated Monday, 16th September, 2013). I was exceedingly humbled and profoundly honoured by a reply from the Head of the Outreach Unit (vide her letter, Reference: 2013/PIDS/OU/009/CP, dated 26 September 2013). I look forward to visiting you at the Court one day.

Your Excellency, I am appalled by the sanctions imposed on the ICC by the President of the United States of America, HE Donald J. Trump, in an Executive Order, and the mudslinging of the Court’s officials by the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Netanyahu, rebuking and punishing the Court for issuing an arrest warrant against the Prime Minister of the State of Israel and his former Defence Minister for suspected crimes committed in Gaza, in the territory of Palestine.

On this note therefore, I wish to express my solidarity with the ICC in the face of this unwarranted assault and also thank the Court for championing the cause for global justice, peace and order by holding perpetrators of crimes accountable, no matter who they are or how powerful they may be. Crime is abhorrent irrespective of who commits it; and all culprits should be pursued and subjected to fair and just investigations and subsequently trial, if need be. Every human life counts/matters and should be valued and respected by all and sundry. I note that this is the second time that President Trump and Premier Netanyahu are sanctioning and mudslinging the ICC. From my research and studies in diverse fields of law, social and political sciences, and economics, I am aware that if such actions and rhetoric from senior global figures is tolerated, that would surely be recipe for disaster because the world will descend into lawlessness and become a NAZI-like state where might is right.

I learnt from media reports that Premier Netanyahu and his co-accused former Minister appealed against issuance of the arrest warrant. That is the right thing to do if one is dissatisfied with court results; but not, at the same time, seeking to circumvent and pre-empt legitimate processes through underhand extra-judicial measures like imposing sanctions on court officers. That is tantamount to duplicity, double standards, subversion of justice and breach of the cardinal legal principle of equality before and under the law.

By looking elsewhere in the world, at least we, in Africa, are grateful to the ICC for dispelling the perception and propaganda of our leaders that it is a racist institution, designed for Africa, to operate as an avenue for neo-colonialism and Western domination by only targeting African leaders. This demonstrates that the ICC is a truly international court that is capable of holding other offenders elsewhere accountable, and also helps eradicate the slander and stigma that it is only Africans who commit crimes of global concern.

Otherwise, for us in Africa we thank the Court for standing with us in our search for sanity in leadership by routing out wanton abuse of human rights by leaders through rampant misuse of power. The ICC has proved to be a reliable partner in this noble cause by promoting personal accountability for excesses through apprehending culprits. Nowadays we increasingly see self-restraint from authorities on the continent because they are well aware that those who trample upon people’s rights are being watched and will surely be brought to justice. We hope this success can be replicated everywhere.

In conclusion, I condemn the imposition of sanctions and mudslinging leveled against the International Criminal Court by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the Court performing its mandate. I call upon people everywhere to support and stand in solidarity with the Court and push back against such attacks on it. By copy of this letter, I respectfully request President Trump and Premier Netanyahu to desist from undermining the ICC. Further, I call upon the US Government to revoke the sanctions imposed on the Court’s officials.

Yours faithfully, 

[signed]

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

Mobile:          +256753124713 & +256772748300.

Email:             bakampasenior@gmail.com.

Web:               www.huntedthinker.blogspot.ug.

 

 

Copy to:        1.         Immediate Office of the Registrar

2.         Immediate Office of the Head of the Outreach Unit

3.         President Donald Trump (through HE the US Ambassador to Uganda)

4.         Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (through HE the Israeli Ambassador for Uganda)

Application/Request to Hon. Justice Esta Nambayo to Recuse Herself from Hearing Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-CV-MA-0911-2024, Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Attorney General

BAKAMPA BRIAN BARYAGUMA

MOBILE: +256753124713 & +256772748300;

EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;

WEB ADDRESS: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;

Kampala, Uganda.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Friday, 31st January, 2025.

To:

Hon. Justice Esta Nambayo,

Courts of Judicature,

High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division),

Kampala, Uganda.

Your Lordship,

Re: Application/Request to Recuse Yourself from Hearing Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-CV-MA-0911-2024, Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Attorney General.

[Under Practice Directions 5 and 7 of The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019, Legal Notice No. 7 of 2019.]

I served the letter to all concerned stakeholders as can be seen from their stamps acknowledging receipt of it. Court copies were filed electronically via ECCMIS as required by law, but I also took initiative to deliver a hard copy to Justice Nambayo through her clerk.

1.                  Introduction.

“If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us,” Francis Bacon.

Thank you very much for the good work you are doing for our country, Uganda. God bless you abundantly.

My Lord, I have the unenviable task of requesting you to refrain from hearing Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-CV-MA-0911-2024, Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Attorney General (hereinafter “MA 911/2024”) and recuse yourself from adjudicating it.

As you are aware, I sued the Government of Uganda in 2021, through the Attorney General, in this court vide Miscellaneous Cause No. 129 of 2021, Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Attorney General (hereinafter “MC 129/2021”), for violation of my fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. You heard that case and dismissed it from court on Friday, 22nd March, 2024.

I am aggrieved by your dismissal of my case from court and have duly applied for it to be reviewed. Pleadings in the application have been completed and are now closed. By automatic application of the law, under order 46, rules 2 and 4 of The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71–1, the case should come back to your Lordship for review of the same. I am, however, extremely uncomfortable with you hearing this application for review, for reasons given hereunder, and humbly request you to recuse yourself from it.

But before much ado, I would like to inform your Lordship that I have found it necessary to copy this application/letter to other stakeholders in the justice sector, notably the Honourable Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, because the letter raises pertinent matters of general public importance and/or concern in the administration of justice in this country, which I think the stakeholders, being directly responsible at the policy, administrative and political levels, should know and find ways of remedying/addressing urgently.

2.                  Reasons for Applying/Requesting for Recusal.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” Martin Luther King, Jr.

The following are my reasons for applying/requesting for your Lordship’s recusal from hearing this application i.e. MA 911/2024.

A.                Questionable Impartiality.

I doubt, and indeed question your Lordship’s impartiality in this matter because during hearing of my cause from which the application for review arises, in your chambers on Thursday, 1st September, 2022, you made an inappropriate comment that, “Why don’t I just dismiss your case and you appeal?” even before reading through my file to ascertain the case’s merits. My doubts and questioning of your impartiality are not afterthoughts following your dismissal of my cause, as I have constantly lived with them ever since the hearing. I held those fears even up to the very day when you issued your ruling, as can be seen in my letter to the Chief Justice proposing amendments to the rules of civil procedure in courts that is available online here: https://huntedthinker.blogspot.com/2024/03/proposed-amendments-to-civil-procedure.html.

Nothing could probably be more coincidental than your ruling and my letter because apparently as you finalized writing the ruling and signed it off, I also finalized the letter, judging from the fact that both are dated the same day and were delivered to their intended recipients at roughly the same time: the ruling was delivered to my email at 4:10 PM, while I delivered my letter in the Chief Justice’s chambers at about 3:30 PM. In the letter, at page 11, lines 251-252, I commented on MC 129/2021 saying that, “…one of the options available to the learned trial Judge, Nambayo J, in her ruling, is dismissing the cause.” So, as you can see, up to the very last minute, I walked in anticipation of you dismissing my case, as you promised – and you did not disappoint.

By-the-way, those who read my complaint to H.E. the President against Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Elubu, dated Tuesday, 6th December, 2022 (available online here: https://huntedthinker.blogspot.com/2022/12/investigation-and-removal-from-office.html) may want to know that you are the judge I was referring to, at page 28, lines 697-699, when I wrote that, “Indeed, in another case I am pursuing in the High Court, the trial judge (name withheld) told me, “Why don’t I just dismiss your case and you appeal?” even before reading through my file to ascertain the case’s merits.”

From that comment, it is clear that in your Lordship’s mind the only feasible remedy for me now, after your dismissal of my case, is appealing to the Court of Appeal; yet here I am invoking another remedy i.e. review of your decision. Since, from your inappropriate comments, you immediately concluded that the case was hopeless and that the hearing of it represented a disgraceful waste of judicial resources, I am sure you hold the same opinion and attitude of this case for review and cannot reasonably be expected to be impartial in its adjudication. You are already biased and therefore unable to review this case impartially.

To my mind, the applicable test for bias was supplied by Chief Justice Alfonse Chigamoy Owiny-Dollo in the case of In Re Application for Recusal of Hon. Justice Alfonse Chigamoy Owiny-Dollo CJ, Miscellaneous Application No. 03 of 2021 (hereinafter “In re Owiny-Dollo”) that I accept as the authority in our realm in which the appropriate test was most recently elucidated. The learned Chief Justice said, at pages 22-23 of his ruling, that,

I therefore find the correct test for bias to be “whether a reasonable, objective and informed person, acting on the correct facts, would reasonably apprehend that the Judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case”. The ‘mind’ referred to herein is one that is open to persuasion by the evidence and submissions of Counsel. The reasonableness of the apprehension must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by Judges to administer Justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will. This is the duty to render justice without prejudice. (Emphasis is in the original.)

Judging from your inappropriate comment stated above, I reasonably apprehend that you, “… will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case” for review now before you because clearly you are prejudiced, and so your mind is not open to persuasion. By that comment, you have effectively judged the case even before it has been presented. For this reason, my Lord, I respectfully request you to recuse yourself from this case. I so pray.

B.                 Exhibiting Bias in the Cause.

Closely related to the first reason above is another one, which is that you actually exhibited bias in your adjudication of MC 129/2021.

In your ruling, your Lordship found and held that there is no evidence presented at all to show that I was ever subjected to abuse as alleged and that all I did was to sit down and write as if I was presenting a moot problem. In other words, your Lordship said that my case is non-existent, is a forgery, and that I am a liar.

But actually there is evidence presented in the cause and had you looked more intently and open-mindedly, you would have seen and appreciated it. I presented oral/direct evidence which is permissible under sections 58 and 59 of The Evidence Act, Cap. 6. The import of the sections is that all facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence, which must be direct in all cases, meaning that if it is evidence of a fact which could be seen, heard, perceived, or opinion held, then it must be the evidence of the person who saw it, heard it, perceived it or holds that opinion.

Your Lordship, in my pleadings in MC 129/2021, I accused the Attorney General, through his officers, of violating my right to respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment;  violating of my right to personal liberty;  violating my right to food;  and violating my right to health and medical treatment.  To support and sustain these accusations, I made averments in my affidavit in support of notice of motion showing that I testified to things that were done to me. I therefore saw, heard and perceived them myself, hence qualifying and passing as oral/direct evidence. It was therefore clear exhibition of bias for you to say that there is no evidence presented at all to show that I was ever subjected to abuse as alleged and that all I did was to sit down and write as if I was presenting a moot problem.

But, suppose it is argued that you were not prejudiced and biased against me, but that you merely held a wrong view leading to you making a wrong decision. Still, such argument cannot stand considering that you made totally contrary decisions in other cases very similar to mine. One such case is your ruling in RO 10224 Retired Lieutenant Ali Nangosha Kundu v. The Attorney General of Uganda, Miscellaneous Cause No. 229 of 2018 (hereinafter “Nangosha v. AG”). In that case, the Respondent (Attorney General) was served with the Applicant’s pleadings but did not file a reply to the application – just like in my cause, MC 129/2021. Plus, in Nangosha v. AG, a state attorney from the Attorney General’s chambers appeared for the hearing on behalf of the AG – just like in my cause, MC 129/2021 because according to the certified record of proceedings, Ms. Elizabeth Semakula appeared in court for hearing on 11th January 2022 and sought an adjournment. To this extent, Nangosha v. AG is on all fours with my case now under review. Yet, ironically, your Lordship held totally conflicting views in both cases: in Nangosha v. AG you said that all the facts stated in the application and the accompanying affidavit are true since the AG opted not to file a reply after being served with the application, while in my case, you said that it was drafted as if it is a moot problem. What a contradiction!

Perhaps you may argue in your defence that in my cause, I did not attach any documents to confirm my claims, whereas in Nangosha v. AG there were documents attached to confirm the claims. Now, in law such documents are technically termed as real evidence. I believe you understand well the concept of real evidence and so I need not belabor giving an elaborate explanation of it here. Suffice to say that real evidence is not a mechanical matter, to be invented and presented in each and every case. If it does not exist, it need not (and cannot) be adduced in court; and that by itself does not make the case presented moot. Rather, it is the duty of a party having real evidence to adduce it in court during trial. Thus you will find that in this review application, MA 911/2024, the Attorney General has adduced a letter dated 20th May 2021 accompanied by lock up registers of the days I was detained and released from custody, both obtained from the Inspector General of Police. This real evidence of the letter and lock up registers confirms that I was truly in police detention as stated in my pleadings and so my case cannot be moot/non-existent as your Lordship found and held in your ruling. Of course, the Attorney General bringing these documents now is a misguided, disingenuous and legally untenable attempt by him to belatedly adduce evidence and disguisedly defend the cause in this review application – something I cannot allow to go unchallenged. He should have brought them in the cause. It is now too late in the day for him to do that.

Then, by-the-way, you may realize that section 58 of The Evidence Act on proof of facts by oral evidence excludes the contents of documents from being proved orally. That exception is instructive to note because it shows that real evidence (like documents) is not the only mode of proof that is possible in a court case. Hence, if the documents are there and available to a litigant in a case, then they should be adduced in evidence, but if they are not (like I did not have them in my cause, MC 129/2021) then they definitely need not be presented because real evidence cannot be manufactured. For instance, had a police bond form been issued to me upon my release from detention at Central Police Station, Kampala, I would have definitely attached it to my pleadings. But those were days of Covid-19 and Uganda Police was easily releasing detainees, especially those on minor offences like me, in order to decongest police cells. So, as a judge, you cannot expect me to adduce a police bond form to confirm that my right to personal liberty was violated. My testimony – moreover uncontested – is enough. And, for your information, there are many situations where cases succeed on plain, persuasive averments of parties, for example oral contracts, circumstantial evidence and events occurring in private spaces such as disputes in domestic relations. So, lack of real evidence is no indicator of mootness of a case, as you supposed.

Probably it may be said that if a court of law accepts such a case as mine that does not have supporting real evidence, then that will open floodgates, thereby allowing lies and unfounded cases to flood in courts. While this may be a valid concern, that cannot be a justification for wholesale rejection and dismissal of otherwise true cases. That will result in entrenchment of injustice and oppression. Since most facts with which a court is concerned are not capable of being tested empirically, proof in the legal sense is quite different from proof in the context of mathematics or science. Thus the uncorroborated evidence of one credible witness is sufficient proof for most purposes in the law. This is precisely the reason why we have in existence laws like order 8, rule 3 of The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71–1 and court precedents like Prof. J Oloka-Onyango & Others v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 08 of 2014, which are to the effect that where one has alleged a fact and the person against whom the fact is alleged, does not deny, he is presumed to have accepted that fact. Accordingly, your Lordship’s decision in my uncontested case, MC 129/2021, that there is no evidence presented at all to show that I was ever subjected to abuse as alleged and that all I did was to sit down and write as if I was presenting a moot problem is a negation of the above provisions of the law, rendering them meaningless and non-existent, and consequently causing gross miscarriage of justice to me. Your duty as a court of law is to make the rules effective and workable, not inept and inoperative.

Maybe to assuage those still holding the floodgates fears, let me say that at the end of the day, it should be understood that the job of dispensing justice should be left to the best among us and indeed only the best of us should be chosen to do it. Judicial officers must be able to succinctly discern fact from fiction, on close scrutiny, without confusing or mistaking one for the other. Those who cannot measure up to the task should not be tolerated and be weeded out of the judicial system. So much for this matter.

It follows, therefore, from the foregoing, that the trial of the cause, MC 129/2021, giving rise to this review application, was unfair, your Lordship having exhibited bias and prejudice against me, having baselessly concluded that there is no evidence presented at all to show that I was ever subjected to abuse as alleged and that all I did was to sit down and write as if I was presenting a moot problem, yet in fact I presented oral/direct evidence in the case to confirm my claims. Your mind was clouded by your immediate conclusion at the hearing of the cause on Thursday, 1st September, 2022, that it was hopeless and that the hearing of it represented a disgraceful waste of judicial resources, as can be seen from your inappropriate comment that, “Why don’t I just dismiss your case and you appeal?” even before reading through my file to ascertain the case’s merits. You had effectively judged the case even before it had been presented and closed, thus satisfying the test for bias enunciated in the case of In re Owiny-Dollo. Your decision is not to command respect by any innate justice or morality. Hence, for reason of exhibiting bias in my cause, I request your Lordship to please recuse yourself from this present case for review of your ruling in the cause. I so pray.

3.                  General Observations on the Administration of Justice.

The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis,” Dante.

In 2020, soon after I started litigating in this court (the High Court), I was told by some practitioners that it is very hard to win against government in court. When I asked why that was so, they said it is because of compromises on the part of judges, explaining that it is one way for them to express their loyalty to those in power and endear themselves to their appointers, hoping even to receive more favors and privileges. I was told that even the Minister of Justice, Hon. Norbert Mao, speaking in a news report, expressed concern that some judges decide cases involving government as if they are government themselves. In other words, that they take such cases personal. I did not watch or hear the report myself, but I have no reason to doubt the credibility and authenticity of my sources. With particular reference to MC 129/2021 from which this application for review arises, I was told in no uncertain terms that since it involves the President I should expect to lose it. Initially I thought that to be a weak reason and did not give it much attention. But when I finally appeared before Justice Nambayo Esta and she made the inappropriate comment mentioned above at page 2, lines 47-48, I realized that I was truly naïve and simply inexperienced in these matters.

But even before I appeared before her, there was an attempt to interfere in the case by losing its file so that it is not presented in court. I filed it on 23rd April 2021 and then the file went missing for the next five months until Wednesday, 15th September, 2021. During that time, I made frantic efforts to have it located and copies given to me for service on the Attorney General, but the Judge’s clerk, Ms. Nakacwa Jennifer, kept tossing me up and down with all sorts of lies, until I was convinced that the file was lost. On Monday, 16th August, 2021, I wrote and published a blog post here: https://huntedthinker.blogspot.com/2021/08/how-can-modern-judiciary-lose-court-file.html, wondering how a modern judiciary can lose a court file, which I also circulated on various social media platforms. Following this publication, Ms. Nakacwa informed me, on Thursday, 26th August, 2021, that she had found the file, but that the registrar had not yet signed and sealed it, and advised me to wait. She kept telling me to call her after a few hours or days, until she stopped picking my calls. So, on Friday, 10th September, 2021, I wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court Civil Division, reporting the loss of my file. On Wednesday, 15th September, 2021, Ms. Nakacwa called to tell me that my file was found and asked me to come for copies of my documents. I did so on Thursday, 16th September, 2021 and served the Attorney General, who did not file a reply, prompting me to apply to proceed ex parte. Whenever my case came up for hearing, the Judge would not be around and it would be adjourned. Fed up of the adjournments, I tried to get a registrar to hear my ex parte application but my attempts failed. I finally met Justice Nambayo Esta at the hearing of Thursday, 1st September, 2022. I found her very angry for reasons best known to her, although I suspect the anger was fuelled by my spirited pursuit of the case. The rest, as the saying goes, is history, until her manifestly biased ruling that is in favour of the Attorney General i.e. government. Clearly this was a highly syndicated trial between the court and Attorney General’s Chambers. It is regrettable that instead of these courts modeling us as beacons of civilization, they are leading us into a cesspool of corruption and decay. Perhaps the warnings and words of caution I received from the advocates that it is nearly impossible to win against government in its courts of today, no matter how good your case is, must have been right. Moreover, in further reference to my particular situation, Justice Nambayo Esta’s prejudicial ruling followed the scandalous ruling of another High Court (Civil Division) judge, Justice Elubu Michael in February 2022, in my case against Law Development Centre (a government agency), which shocked me to the marrow. That ruling, the absurdity of which I analyzed and discussed in the complaint alluded to earlier at page 3, lines 65-71, significantly lowered my trust and confidence in our judiciary; so much so that nowadays when I come across a really senseless court decision, I am not surprised at all.

In light of the foregoing, I would like to take this opportunity to join numerous other voices in warning against encouraging or inculcating a politicized judicial system – one of courts without justice – in which the judiciary is a political arm of the state designed for repression and quick fixes for rulers of the day. A professional and impartial judiciary benefits both governors and commoners in many respects including that it will defend those with power today when they lose it tomorrow, thereby becoming vulnerable to the injustice and abuse they constructed. A partial and intrinsically biased judiciary also frustrates other judicial processes like out-of-court settlement of disputes by disinteresting parties involved from pursuing such mechanisms; because, for instance, why should a party who knows that the judge is already in his or her pockets, and is therefore confident and assured of victory, no matter the merits of his or her case, want to reach a negotiated out-of-court settlement with the opponent? This state of affairs contributes to backlog and continuous circulation of cases in the court system.

And so, it is obvious that we cannot afford to have pseudo-politicians in judicial garbs because their actions simply cause more harm and pain instead of curing or solving them. I think they are better off resigning their judicial roles to go and do active politics at political party or national level. They even do a disservice to their colleagues who wake up every day to do a good, professional job in the administration and dispensation of justice, by subjecting them (the professionals) to undeserved mistrust and disdain. Such unscrupulous judicial officers are an embarrassment to themselves, their colleagues and the country as a whole. History, man and God will not look upon them kindly and will judge them harshly. To them I say that you may probably consider yourselves untouchable, which explains the noxious aura of impunity that follows your doings, but let me remind you of the words of the French philosopher, Montesquieu:Be ye ever so high, the law is above you.” One day you will account for your wrongs.

4.                  Conclusion.

“Through conflict and challenge, better laws and practices emerge,” Bwowe Ivan.

Your Lordship, from the foregoing, your impartiality in this matter, MA 911/2024, is reasonably in question. Article 28 (1) of The Constitution requires and obliges you, as a court of law, to be independent and impartial in determining civil rights and obligations – such as those at hand. In the same vein, that article entitles me to an independent and impartial court in determination of my civil rights and obligations. By your own conduct, and indeed from reading your ruling, you are not such a court.

Therefore, with great humility and utmost respect, I humbly request you to refrain from further participating in any proceedings in this matter and recuse yourself from handling of the same, in accordance with practice direction 5 of The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019, Legal Notice No. 7 of 2019. Thank you.

My Lord, before taking leave of this matter, kindly allow me to comment, in passing, on two things–

First, is to remind you that I have another case pending before you vide Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Bbaaka Property Consultants (U) Ltd, Miscellaneous Cause No. HCT-00-CV-MC-0033-2023. It has been due for ruling for long, yet at the conclusion of hearing on Monday, 3rd July, 2023, you undertook to deliver ruling on Thursday, 14th September, 2023, at 09:00 AM. I humbly request you to expedite delivery of the ruling in that cause.

Second, is to assure you that I am an upright person, since by your decision in MC 129/2021, your Lordship effectively said that my case is non-existent, a forgery, and that I am a liar. I would not want that whenever and wherever you see me, you think that I am a crook who forges things. I went to State House and President’s Office for sure (as proved in evidence by the Attorney General in this application, MA 911/2024), and what I narrate in the cause (MC 129/2021) was truly what was done to me by the police personnel that I interacted with in that venture. My story was even reported post facto in the Sunday Monitor newspaper of 12th April 2020, at page 2 (available online here: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/lawyer-earns-night-in-jail-for-begging-food-from-museveni-1884926). My action awoke the conscience of the nation by reminding all and sundry that we are one another’s keeper. Before that, everyone was at home waiting for government to deliver relief food items, but after my decision, people with means came up to assist those without and in need, especially if they belonged in the same occupation. I remember first were DJs, followed by advocates in Uganda Law Society with a young lawyers’ relief scheme, then musicians followed suit, and the chain spread to other categories of people. I am grateful to God for using me to positively impact my country in this way.

With these remarks, I rest my case. Thank you, once again, your Lordship.

For God and my country.


[signed]

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

Applicant

 

 

Copy to:        1. Hon. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs

2. Hon. Attorney General

3. Chairperson, Judicial Service Commission

4. Deputy Registrar, Civil Division

5. President, Uganda Law Society

Thursday, 23 January 2025

The Day I Almost Died

 By Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

bakampasenior@gmail.com; www.huntedthinker.blogspot.ug

There are two occasions I vividly remember on which I almost died, but God graciously saved my life. Those moments remind me the words of scripture in Psalm 34:19-20, where the Bible says that, “Good people suffer many troubles, but the Lord saves them from them all; the Lord preserves them completely; not one of their bones is broken.”

The first time was on Friday, 2nd January, 2015. I was jogging on the northern bypass, in Bukoto, Kampala, soon after that fly-over that goes to Kisaasi, for those of you who know the place. I was heading towards Kyebando-Kisalosalo. It was at about 6:30 AM, when suddenly a fast speeding car emerged from in front of me and almost knocked me dead. All I remember is that before that happening, I had looked ahead of me while running and seemed to see a car parked at a distance, white in colour that resembled what we, in Uganda, call “my car”. Usually these are Toyota Coronas, Corollas and the like. I was facing down while running then suddenly heard the sound of a fast moving object and felt a gush of wind blow in my face. I stopped suddenly and by reflex, moved aback, as though I were playing kwepena, for those of you who know that game that is usually played by young girls, using a tiny ball. That reflex move backwards saved my life because the tip of the car’s mirror touched my jogging T-shirt, as the car sped off and got stuck in the surrounding swamp.

People gathered at the scene, sympathized with me for surviving death, as we helped the driver get out of the car whose door was apparently failing to open. Among those people was a tall, fat (or more courteously, well fed) and a bit dark skinned woman, wearing a charcoal grey skirt and a blouse whose colour I don’t quite remember. She was standing on the edge of the road, with her arms folded on her chest. As for me, I was slightly down in the swamp, trying to help the driver get out of his stuck car. Therefore, I stood below her in terms of gradient. She seemed detached from and unbothered by what was going on; and indeed none of the other people around seemed to notice her presence. I remember she said to me, in Luganda, that, “Olaba Katonda nga bwakwagala? Yongela okumuweleza.” In English it means: “Do you see how God loves you? Keep serving Him.” I gazed at her, speechless, in some kind of mixed amazement and disbelief, as she also looked at me. I was overwhelmed by wonder and didn’t say anything.

Then, the man in the car coughed and I turned for about four seconds to look at him. I saw that there were people helping him, trying to open the car door. So I turned again to see and talk to the woman who spoke to me. But she was nowhere to be seen. I run up to the road to see if she was probably walking away, but I couldn’t see her anywhere. I checked in every direction, but nothing. I asked the people there whether they saw where the fat woman that was standing there went, but they all asked me which woman I was talking about. Nobody knew. I was hurt and disappointed because I really wanted to talk to her and ask her what she meant exactly and how I can continue serving God. Then it occurred to me that this woman could have been an angel sent to me, because there was no way she could have got lost completely in just about four seconds of me looking away. Moreover nobody else among the people around had seen her. Only I had seen her. To this day, I feel and think there was something supernatural about her. Anyway, that was the first time I came so close to death, but survived by a whisker. God saved me from death.

The second time I almost died was on Saturday, 4th March, 2023. I was attacked and clobbered in my bed by my cousin brother, Turyatemba Samson, with whom I stayed. The attack happened in the morning, between about 04:45 AM and 05:00 AM. He hit me all over my body with a hard, blunt object (which I suspect was a hammer), as he cut me all over with a sharp knife. Only God saved me from death or at least grave and permanent disability. As usual, God acts either through people or circumstances. In this case He saved me through circumstances because, one, I have a thick blanket which absorbed the hits and, two, electricity was off such that Samson couldn’t see me since it was dark. Otherwise, had power been on, he would have switched on the bulb, identified and spotted my sleeping position very well and then struck me to death instantly.

A photo of Turyatemba Samson, my near-murderer.

I had started staying with Samson just one week earlier, on Saturday, 25th February, 2023. His father and mine are brothers; and so we have grown up knowing each other and occasionally interacting. We have no history whatsoever of personal differences, grudges or quarrels. Even in the one week we had stayed together, we had no outstanding disputes warranting him to kill me – of all things. As you can imagine, therefore, he was the last person I expected to want me dead.

In blood stained clothes in the early morning of the attack, soon after being stitched in the clinic.

For a long time, I had heard our relatives complain that Samson (a graduate of computer science from Mbarara University of Science and Technology) is mad, although for his part, his father doubted that, insisting that he is not mad and is just pretending to be so. I had never got an opportunity to see Samson until that moment of us living together. My assessment of him, as at that time, is that he is not mad, but perhaps depressed and in need of counseling. My assessment is based on the fact that I could clearly see that Samson understood well what he was doing. For instance, the knife he used to attack me was the sharpest of all three knives we had in the house (one being a fruit knife and the other two being ordinary peeling/cooking knives). Then, I say that Samson was depressed judging from his behavior which generally resembled that of my roommate at university who was fond of constantly quarreling with me over minor and really straightforward things. Our friends in neighbouring rooms used to wonder why we were always quarreling. Myself I never understood why because to me, the things he fussed and grumbled over seemed obviously wrong and hence unacceptable. It was until one year later, after I had left Makerere University and gone to Law Development Centre for postgraduate bar course studies that he really fell sick, was admitted to University Hospital and diagnosed with depression. He ended up getting a dead year as he underwent treatment. It was then that I came to know that depression is a truly dangerous disease or condition. What is unusual or abnormal to you, a normal person, is perfectly OK for a person laboring under depression. It is like he or she is upside down, seeing and doing things the opposite way. Please, beware mental disorders.

Some of the wounds I sustained during the attack. I almost lost my right eye. It is miraculous that it survived. Samson cut my cheek and eye lashes because he was targetting my throat since I was  screaming and shouting for help. He was aiming for where the sound was coming from.

Anyway, long story short: when Samson ferociously attacked me in my peaceful sleep on that fateful morning of Saturday, 4th March, 2023, I screamed, making alarm, calling for help which attracted neighbours and local council officials. When they started banging on the door, Samson opened it, run out with the knife and hammer, and has never been heard of or found to this day. At least no one has ever told me that he or she knows where he (Samson) is. I think he fears arrest. The responders took me to a nearby clinic where my profusely bleeding wounds were stitched and was treated. I thank and glorify God for saving my life – yet again – on that day. It will forever be a historic moment of my life. God covered me in His boundless grace and mercy.

Knife cut on my left arm. This wound was sustained while I tried to guard myself against Samson’s hammer and knife hits.
 

Knife cuts on my lower right arm. These wounds were also sustained while defending myself. For me, the scars of the injuries sustained are a constant reminder of God’s goodness to me.

Knife cut on my left thigh.

Wound on the back side of my right shoulder. This was the first spot that Samson hit with his hammer, thereby waking me from my sleep. He hit it so hard and repeatedly that it was as if he was hitting a snake. By targetting this body part, he was aiming to hit the back of my head and thereby kill me instantly.

Wound sustained on my left leg. The injuries sustained on my legs are not pronounced because the impacts of the hammer were absorbed by my thick blanket. It is a miracle that my femur bones were not broken and shattered, rendering me permanently crippled.

Wherever Samson is hiding, he is right to fear being arrested because I reported a criminal case to Uganda Police Force and he is now a wanted person. Here is my reference issued by police at Nakulabye Police Station in Kampala. Please arrest him on sight and hand him over to the nearest police or other authority. 

And so, dear reader, after these two near-death incidents, for me every moment above the ground is a blessing. I believe God saved me for a purpose and so I live aspiring to know, understand and fulfil it. So help me God. Like the young would-be prophet Samuel, I say, “Speak, Lord, your servant is listening”.

Sunday, 24 March 2024

Proposed Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, Court of Appeal Rules and Supreme Court Rules

 BAKAMPA BRIAN BARYAGUMA

MOBILE: +256753124713 / +256772748300;

EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;

WEB ADDRESS: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;

Kampala, Uganda.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Proposed Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, Court of Appeal Rules and Supreme Court Rules

By

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

[Dip. Law (First Class) – LDC; Cert. PELD – NaLI-K; Cert. Oil & Gas – Mak; LLB (Hons) – Mak]

To

The Chairperson of the Rules Committee cum Chief Justice

Kampala, Uganda.

 

22 March 2024.

 ____________________________________________________________

Friday, 22nd March, 2024.

To:

The Chairperson of the Rules Committee cum Chief Justice,

Courts of Judicature,

High Court Building,

Plot 2, The Square,

P.O. Box 7085, Kampala, Uganda.

Your Lordship,

Re: Proposed Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, Court of Appeal Rules and Supreme Court Rules

1.                 Introduction

Thank you for your good service to Uganda. Congratulations are in order for the Judiciary constructing the appellate courts twin tower buildings that house the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The twin towers are incredibly beautiful. This is a truly phenomenal achievement. Please take my hearty appreciation for garnering this milestone. I look forward to the buildings’ commissioning.

The letter was duly served on the Chief Justice who is also the Chairperson of the Rules Committee, as evidenced by the stamp of acknowledgment of receipt on the top right corner of this image.
2.                 Matters of Serious Concern in Rules of Civil Procedure

I wish to bring to your Lordship’s attention, for consideration by the Rules Committee, with the view of amendment, matters of serious concern in our rules of civil procedure namely, The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71–1 (hereinafter “the Civil Procedure Rules”), The Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, Statutory Instrument 13–10 (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal Rules”) and The Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, Statutory Instrument 13–11 (hereinafter “the Supreme Court Rules”).

My proposals concern the time for filing affidavits in reply under the Civil Procedure Rules and mandatory furnishing of security for costs under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court of Appeal Rules and the Supreme Court Rules.

Since rule-making is the province of the Rules Committee, I propose that for the reasons given below, the Committee be pleased to amend appropriately the provisions identified hereunder.

A.               Concerning Time for Filing Affidavits in Reply under the Civil Procedure Rules

For a long time, the law and practice was that a defendant (including a respondent) must file his, her or its defence (including an affidavit in reply) within fifteen (15) days from the date of issue of summons. This position was recognized in many authorities notably the ruling of Justice Christopher Madrama in the case of Stop And See [U] Ltd v. Tropical Africa Bank Ltd, Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010 (hereinafter “Stop v. Tropical Bank”) in which the learned judge exhaustively considered timelines for filing of interlocutory applications, which timelines, nevertheless, applied to all other applications where affidavits in reply are required. Under that legal regime, an affidavit in reply was considered to be a pleading like any other (such as a plaint and a written statement of defence) and treated as such. The penalty for a non-compliant affidavit was striking it out of the court record with costs.

However, the legal position in Stop v. Tropical Bank has since been rescinded and replaced with that in the case of Dr. Lam–Lagoro James v. Muni University, Miscellaneous Cause No. 0007 of 2016 (hereinafter “Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University”) wherein Justice Stephen Mubiru rejected the practice of subjecting affidavits in reply to strict timelines, opting instead for the measure of a reasonable time before the date fixed for hearing. In the learned Judge’s words, at page 11 of the ruling:

An affidavit in reply, being evidence rather than a pleading in stricto sensu, should be filed and served on the adverse party, within a reasonable time before the date fixed for hearing, time sufficient to allow that adverse party a fair opportunity to respond.

As can be seen, under this legal regime, an affidavit in reply is not considered to be a pleading like any other (such as a plaint and a written statement of defence) and is therefore not treated as such. Further, the penalty for a non-compliant affidavit is penalizing the guilty party with an order to pay costs for the inconvenience caused. At page 11 of his ruling, Mubiru J put the position thus:

For that reason, an affidavit in reply filed and served in circumstances which necessitate an adjournment to enable the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond, should not be disregarded or struck off but rather the guilty party ought to be penalised in costs for the consequential adjournment.

But Lord Chairperson, to my mind, the departure from the Stop v. Tropical Bank legal regime (if I may put it that way) to that of Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University is not wholly desirable. Whereas there may have existed good reasons in Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University for rejecting imposition of strict timelines for filing and serving the affidavit in reply, I do not think it was wise to wholly rescind the fixed timelines stipulated in Stop v. Tropical Bank because, as will be seen in the ensuing discussion, that wholesome rescission will result in unjust and arguably absurd results in other situations. To appreciate this, probably one must compare and contrast the situation in Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University with other possible (and in fact real) situations elsewhere, as a case study of sorts.

The Situation in Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University

In Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University, it was explained and found that it was not possible for the respondent University to file an affidavit in reply within the then stipulated time of 15 days because some of the minutes they needed to annex to the affidavit in reply required approval at subsequent meetings of the University Council, which council meets at least once in three months as stipulated under section 42 (1) of The Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act. So, in that case, the respondent filed its defence quite very late simply because it was impossible for it to file an affidavit in reply sooner than was done. Personally I think this is understandable and acceptable in the circumstances.

Although, as a matter of course, before accepting and enshrining this into some kind of rule of legal procedure, the Rules Committee would have to first study and analyse how similar situations were handled in the past since Muni University was not the first university to be sued and therefore necessitating a university council to sit and approve of minutes to be used in the relevant litigation proceedings. It should be found out how other universities were handling the situation.

Other Possible (and in Fact Real) Situations Elsewhere

Now let us juxtapose the situation in Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University with other possible situations elsewhere in order to test the desirability of the wholesome rescission of the legal regime in Stop v. Tropical Bank.

Lord Chairperson, to properly buttress my critique of the Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University legal regime, I am going to use my real life, personal litigation experiences to demonstrate that unjust and arguably absurd results will ensue in the currently prevailing legal regime. For this purpose, let me refer to two of my ongoing cases in the High Court, Civil Division, at Kampala. One is Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Bbaaka Property Consultants (U) Ltd, Miscellaneous Cause No. HCT-00-CV-MC-0033-2023 (hereinafter “Bakampa v. Bbaaka Ltd”), which is still pending before Justice Nambayo Esta and the other is Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Law Development Centre, Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-CV-MA-0076-2023 (hereinafter “Bakampa v. LDC”), which is pending before Justice Boniface Wamala.

1.                 The Situation in Bakampa v. Bbaaka Ltd.

The respondent, Bbaaka Property Consultants (U) Ltd, was served with the notice of motion summoning it to file a defence. Bbaaka Ltd indeed filed its defence – the affidavit in reply – 53 days (one month and twenty two days) after service of court process on it, without explaining this inordinate delay. Bbaaka Ltd is a private company, with an ordinary board of directors, devoid of operational intricacies and challenges akin to those of a university council. No wonder it did not allege any plausible hardships that prevented it from filing its defence within the traditionally prescribed time of 15 days.

2.                 The Situation in Bakampa v. LDC.

The respondent, LDC, was served with court summons and pleadings that accuse its retained advocates of committing illegalities, fraud and engaging in professional misconduct during the prosecution of the cause from which that application ultimately arose. Any responses to or explanations for those accusations are well known and could be easily given by LDC’s retained advocates at relatively short notice. Yet they filed their defence (i.e. the affidavit in reply) six (6) months after service of court process on them! They invoked the rule and leeway created in Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University to explain away this inordinate delay. One wonders whether they also needed a council or committee of some kind to sit and approve of their explanation, if any, for engaging in the identified illegalities, fraud and professional misconduct. Definitely they did not and no such explanation was given.

Observations from the Foregoing Scenarios

Lord Chairperson, those are real situations, in live cases. The scenarios referred to are not exhaustive, but they suffice to illustrate my point. So, why should such parties not be held to strict compliance with the 15 days duration for filing an affidavit in reply as stipulated in Stop v. Tropical Bank? Speaking for myself, I do not see any good reason why they should not be so held to comply.

It is precisely for this reason that I hereby propose that the Rules Committee amends the Civil Procedure Rules to enshrine in the Rules the previous legal position in Stop v. Tropical Bank that a defendant (including a respondent) must file his, her or its defence (including an affidavit in reply) within fifteen (15) days from the date of issue and service of summons.

Exceptional circumstances like that in Lam-Lagoro v. Muni University can, if deemed proper, be recognized as exceptions to the general rule. The amendment should strictly consider an affidavit in reply to be a pleading like any other (such as a plaint and a written statement of defence) and treat it as such.

Provisional Arrangements

In the meantime, as we wait for the Rules Committee to do the needful, and in order to urgently fill this lacuna or vacuum and avoid/cure possible injustices and absurdities resulting from its existence, I humbly suggest and recommend that the superior courts of record do utilize the medium of case law to fill the gap. After all, it is the same medium that has been used to create the current state of affairs. In Bakamapa v. LDC, I suggested this to Wamala J. I hope he takes my suggestion/recommendation. Even Nambayo J can do the same in Bakampa v. Bbaaka Ltd, much as I did not present this idea to her at trial.

I so move and propose, your Lordship.

B.               Concerning Mandatory Furnishing of Security for Costs under the Court of Appeal Rules and the Supreme Court Rules

Mandatory furnishing of security for costs in civil appeals is stipulated by rule 9 (1) of order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the exception thereto), rule 105 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and rule 101 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules.

Order 43, rule 9 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows–

ORDER XLIII—APPEALS TO THE HIGH COURT.

9. High Court may require appellant to furnish security for costs.

(1) The High Court may in its discretion, at any time after an appeal is lodged, demand from the appellant security for the costs of the appeal; except that the court shall demand the security in all cases in which the appellant is residing out of Uganda and is not possessed of any sufficient immovable property within Uganda other than the property, if any, to which the appeal relates. (Bold emphasis is in the original; underlined emphasis is added.)

Rule 105 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules provides as follows–

105. Security for costs in civil appeals.

(1) Subject to rule 113 of these Rules, there shall be lodged in court on the institution of a civil appeal, as security for costs of the appeal, the sum of 200,000 shillings. (Emphasis is in the original.)

Rule 101 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules provides as follows–

101. Security for costs in civil appeals.

(1) Subject to rule 109 of these Rules, there shall be lodged in court on the institution of a civil appeal as security for the costs of the appeal the sum of 400,000 shillings. (Emphasis is in the original.)

Lord Chairperson, much as there is an attempt to ameliorate the potentially harsh and disastrous effects of rules 105 (1) and 101 (1) under the designated rules (113 and 109) to which they are respectively subject, by exempting an appellant from lodging security for costs where court is satisfied on the application of the appellant that he or she lacks the means to deposit the security for costs and that the appeal has a reasonable possibility of success, this attempt, I contend, is nonetheless not enough because it exposes the affected litigant to likely higher expenses in form of prosecuting the application for waiver of security for costs and even leads to loss of valuable time in the process. So in all respects, rules 113 and 109 are more illusory than they are useful in this regard.

On the matter of mandatory lodgment of security for costs, my view is that it is not useful to lodge security for them in some cases, like where illegalities are involved such that costs are awarded illegally and are therefore by law irrecoverable, or where in fact there are no costs to be secured in the first place. In such cases, security lodged becomes utterly meaningless and really somewhat oppressive. Perhaps to see this, it is imperative to first appreciate the basics.

James A. Ballentine, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), at 1155, defines security for costs as, “A bond, undertaking, or deposit required of a plaintiff to secure the payment of costs in the action or the unpaid costs of a prior action.” This definition to my mind succinctly captures the primary intention of the lawmaker in enacting the general rule in rule 9 (1) of order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules, rule 105 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and rule 101 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules i.e. to secure the payment of costs of a prior action.

The imposing question then is: what is there to secure if the costs of a prior action are found to have been awarded illegally and are therefore unlawful and unrecoverable, or that actually the person whose costs are being secured did not incur any costs in the prior action? The short and direct answer is: nothing.

For this reason, I propose that the Rules Committee be pleased to amend rule 9 (1) of order 43, of the Civil Procedure Rules, rule 105 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and rule 101 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules to cure the senselessness and utter absurdity inherent in them. I am fortified in this proposal again by possible, real life situations (some of them being my own experiences while involved in litigation in the courts) that render furnishing security for costs unnecessary, as explored below.

Possible Situations that Render Furnishing Security for Costs Unnecessary

Lord Chairperson, there are ample justifications for and indeed appropriate situations necessitating amending the impugned rules to move them away from their currently mandatory character to a directory one. Those justifications and situations include, but are by no means limited to, the following.

1.                 Commission of Offences.

Take, for instance, the aforesaid situation in Bakampa v. LDC at page 6, lines 118-130, where LDC’s retained advocates are accused of committing illegalities, fraud and engaging in professional misconduct during the prosecution of the cause from which that application ultimately arose. The identified illegalities, fraud and professional misconduct amount to offences, by virtue of which LDC cannot recover costs, as enacted under section 69 of The Advocates Act, Cap. 267, as amended 2002 (hereinafter “the 2002 Advocates Act”). It states as follows–

69. No costs recoverable for acts constituting an offence

No costs shall be recoverable in any suit, proceeding or matter by any person in respect of anything done, the doing of which constitutes an offence under this Act, whether or not any prosecution has been instituted in respect of the offence. (Emphasis is in the original.)

The cause from which that application arose, Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Law Development Centre, Miscellaneous Cause No. 428 of 2019, was dismissed with costs. Upon appealing to the Court of Appeal, I paid security for costs of Uganda shillings two hundred thousand (Ugx 200,000), as required. But those costs are irrecoverable under the 2002 Advocates Act, due to the offences committed by LDC’s retained advocates. So why secure them, then?

2.                 Non-appearance of Awardee when Summoned by Court.

Where the awardee did not participate in court proceedings, such as in another case of mine vide Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Attorney General, Miscellaneous Cause No. 129 of 2021 (hereinafter “Bakampa v. AG”), which, as can be seen from its registration number, has been long-pending before Justice Nambayo Esta. In that case, the respondent, the Attorney General (AG), was served with court summons to file a defence but did not file one. So court directed that I proceed ex parte. This means that the AG did not incur any expenses in the case since he did not participate in its prosecution.

Now, one of the options available to the learned trial Judge, Nambayo J, in her ruling, is dismissing the cause. Then I would also have the option of appealing to the Court of Appeal against her ruling, and, of course, be required to pay security for costs – none existing costs since the envisaged beneficiary (the AG) did not participate in the case when summoned to do so! Lord Chairperson, this is ironic; and quite frankly, also senseless and absurd. Why secure none existent costs of an absentee party?

3.                 High Possibility of Awardee Losing on Appeal.

Where an awardee of costs has no likelihood of success on appeal and is therefore putting the appellant to undue expense or great cost by prosecuting a civil appeal in which that awardee has no reasonable prospects of success, thereby raising a prima facie case of the difficulty regarding the success of the awardee, it is improper and unreasonable to subject the appellant to furnishing security for costs that will most likely be unavailable eventually.

For instance, take my appeal to the Court of Appeal (Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Law Development Centre, Civil Appeal No. COA-00-CV-CA-0186-2022) that is related with Bakampa v. LDC referred to above, at page 6, lines 118-130 and page 11, lines 236-241: the illegalities committed by LDC and its retained advocates raise serious doubt about their success in the appeal. Moreover, in the cause from which the appeal arose, apart from unleashing points of law, LDC did not raise any plausible defences to my accusations against it and so it follows that even on appeal, it does not have a good defence and is therefore not likely to succeed; and insofar as it refuses to settle the suit out of court with me, LDC is simply engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation, considering the prima facie case of parties as revealed in pleadings.

So why should a well-grounded appellant be doomed to secure costs of a party standing on shaky and questionable ground?

4.                 Avoiding Ridiculous Outcomes.

It is ridiculous to furnish security for costs of a party that, for instance, engaged in committing offences in the prosecution of a case, did not legally appear to defend itself when summoned to do so, and has no likelihood of success on appeal. Traditionally the law shuns upon ridiculous outcomes. It follows therefore that the same law should not be allowed to be ridiculous itself. Appellants should not be condemned to secure costs of parties whose case results are inevitably ridiculous.

5.                 Novel Points of Law Raised on Appeal.

Where the appellant’s appeal raises novel points of law not adjudged on by the lower court that have the effect of casting doubt upon the correctness of an award of costs, then security for costs of the appeal ought not to be furnished.

For example, grounds 1 and 2 of my memorandum of appeal in my appeal to the Court of Appeal (referred to above, at page 11, lines 236-241) state that:

1.                The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he granted prayers and an adjournment for filing an affidavit in reply to the notice of motion out of time, moved by a non-practitioner.

2.                The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact in accepting Respondent’s submissions that were signed by an unqualified practitioner.

These are new matters which were not considered in the cause in the High Court from which the appeal arose and which, in light of section 69 of the 2002 Advocates Act, vitiate LDC’s award of costs. This vitiation renders untenable furnishing security for costs of my appeal, ostensibly to secure the costs of a party who does not deserve them and cannot recover them legally, anyway.

6.                 If No Prejudice will be Suffered by Those for Whose Benefit the Requirements were Introduced.

As stated at pages 9-10, lines 197-204 above, the primary intention of requiring payment of security for costs is to secure the payment of costs of a prior action. But if, for instance, it emerges that the costs of a prior action are found to have been awarded illegally and are therefore unlawful and unrecoverable, or that actually the person whose costs are being secured did not incur any costs in the prior action, then no prejudice will be suffered by the intended beneficiary of the requirement for payment of security for costs if the security paid to secure those unlawful or non-existent costs is not lodged in court. In such situations, surely an appellant should not be required to furnish security for costs.

Observations from the Foregoing Scenarios

Lord Chairperson, the foregoing are clear situations where security for costs need not (and should not) be furnished by an appellant. The list is by no means exhaustive as there could be other situations. So why should appellants in such cases pay security for costs in their appeals? Speaking for myself, I do not see any good reason why they should be required to furnish security for costs.

My proposals are geared towards making the rules on payment of security for costs workable and encourage, rather than constrain, the culture of constitutionalism because those are special circumstances of a substantial and compelling character that militate against mandatory furnishing of security for costs, such that requiring security to be furnished in light of those circumstances would, to my mind, be tantamount to deprivation of the right to property, which is constitutionally prohibited by article 26 of the Constitution.

There is need to balance the interests and rights of parties in litigation to ensure that neither’s interests and rights are achieved at the expense or to the prejudice of the other. It is precisely for this reason that I hereby propose that the Rules Committee appropriately amends the relevant procedural rules which impose mandatory furnishing of security for costs namely, rule 9 (1) of order 43, rule 9 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (the exception to), rule 105 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and rule 101 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules.

Provisional Arrangements

In the meantime, as we wait for the Rules Committee to do the needful, and in order to urgently fill this lacuna or vacuum and avoid/cure possible injustices and absurdities resulting from the current position of the law, I humbly suggest and recommend that the medium of case law be used to ameliorate the situation, by the superior courts of record construing and interpreting those provisions to be merely directory, but not mandatory.

I so move and propose, your Lordship.

Potential Unconstitutionality of the Impugned Rules

Before taking leave of this matter, Lord Chairperson, I would like to point out, as food for thought for the Rules Committee, that the impugned rules are potentially unconstitutional, which fortifies the case for their amendment by the Committee and provisionally their interpretation and treatment by the courts as being merely directory, but not mandatory.

In their absolute sense – in that they render payment of security for costs obligatory no matter what – the rules raise the question whether their requirements are in fact not unconstitutional, because they pose difficulties, contradictions and anomalies prejudicial to the enjoyment of constitutional rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, such as effectively stifling the constitutional right to go to the courts in which they apply rather than encouraging the enjoyment of that right, yet the Constitution gives the people of Uganda the right to have unimpeded access to those courts to seek appellate justice. Impeded access to the courts must be expressly and clearly stipulated by law, which the impugned rules do not pretend to be or do. In their absolute terms that impose restrictions to the right of access to the courts of their operation, which the Constitution itself does not provide for, the impugned rules are subsidiary legislation that are hampering people’s access to the courts and have the effect of amending the Constitution, thereby seeking to add to and or vary the same and therefore to amend it (Constitution) without doing so through its amendment provisions, thus making the impugned rules clearly against the Constitution and not in accordance with its spirit.

The question that arises is whether the requirements can be sustained in light of the fact that mere statutory instruments could be applied to deny access to constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. The Constitutional Court faced a similar issue in Uganda Association of Women Lawyers, Dora Byamukama, Jaqueline Asiimwe Mwesige, Peter Ddungu Matovu, Joe Oloka Onyango and Phillip Karugaba v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2003 and in its adjudication declared unconstitutional such legislations, mainly because of the hardship they cause in their application to human rights and freedoms cases, yet it is understood beyond question that: the door to the courts should remain wide open for the people of Uganda to have access to them at all times for redress in the event of any violation; the rules are subsidiary legislation which cannot prevail over the Constitution; rather, the Constitution prevails over them.

Lord Chairperson, I have examined the practical implications of rules 9 (1), 105 (1) and 101 (1) in their absolutist sense. Their role is to restrict access to the courts of their operation, acting as an impediment, a roadblock and a nuisance to those seeking access to appellate justice in those courts. They represent a continuing breach of the Constitution by legislation. Undoubtedly, the impugned rules exceed what the makers of the Constitution had intended and therefore have no legal effect in their absolute terms as they are inconsistent with and contravene the Constitution. There is urgent need to make the impugned rules workable and encourage, rather than constrain, the culture of constitutionalism by mitigating their harsh effects so as to encourage rather than discourage citizens’ access to the courts of their operation.

What is required is pretty obvious: the Rules Committee amending, and provisionally, the superior courts of record interpreting the impugned rules as being directory, but not mandatory. The Committee and the courts being the protectors of the rights and freedoms of the citizens must give such legislation and interpretation that will promote rather than destroy the rights. It is high time that the impugned rules are brought into conformity with constitutional standards. So much for this matter.

3.                 Conclusion/Way Forward

Lord Chairperson, in conclusion, I suggest the following as the way forward:

A.               Concerning the Time for Filing Affidavits in Reply under the Civil Procedure Rules.

I propose that the Rules Committee amends the Civil Procedure Rules to enshrine therein the previous legal that a defendant (including a respondent) files his, her or its defence (including an affidavit in reply) within fifteen (15) days from the date of issue and service of summons. The amendment should strictly consider an affidavit in reply to be a pleading like any other (such as a plaint and a written statement of defence) and treat it as such.

B.               Concerning Mandatory Furnishing of Security for Costs under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court of Appeal Rules and the Supreme Court Rules.

One, I propose that rule 9 (1) of order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules be amended by deleting the exception thereto, so as to retain the general rule only. This deletion rids the rule of the undesirable mandatory element embedded in it and retains only the desirable directory element.

Two, I propose that rule 105 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and rule 101 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules be amended by modeling them along the general rule in rule 9 (1) of order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules that is reproduced above, at page 8, lines 161-170. But in order not to procrastinate reading, let me reproduce it below, so far as is relevant.

ORDER XLIII—APPEALS TO THE HIGH COURT.

9. High Court may require appellant to furnish security for costs.

(1) The High Court may in its discretion, at any time after an appeal is lodged, demand from the appellant security for the costs of the appeal; … (Emphasis is in the original.)

This changes the character of the impugned rules from being mandatory to being directory, by making furnishing security of costs a matter of court discretion. This implies that courts cannot require security without hearing both the interested and affected parties and then coming up with a balanced decision on the merits that caters for the interests and rights of all parties concerned.

I so move, your Lordship.

For God and my country,

[signed]

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

Lawyer

Contacts: +256753124713/+256772748300; and bakampasenior@gmail.com.

Featured Post

Address Conflicts between Judges and Lawyers for Peaceful Professional Co-existence

  By Bakampa Brian Baryaguma bakampasenior@gmail.com ; +256753124713 I learnt with great concern that on Friday, 14 th February, 2025 H...

Most Popular