Justice Stephen Mubiru has warned litigants against weaponising recusal applications to intimidate courts or influence the appointment of judges they prefer.
In a 30-page ruling, Justice Mubiru said although the law allows parties to seek the recusal of a judge, judicial officers must resist the temptation to step aside merely because doing so may be more comfortable, avoid embarrassment, or appease unfounded concerns.
“A judge should disqualify himself only if his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if required by law. There must be some demonstrable and rational basis for what the informed observer suspects to constitute bias. Procedural decisions, even when contested, do not inherently indicate bias unless they cross the threshold of the fair-minded observer test,” ruled Justice Mubiru, the Resident Judge of the High Court in Mukono.
The ruling arose from an application for recusal filed by Patel Prakash Kumar and Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto, who are embroiled in a dispute over 640 acres of land in Kinda Village, Kayunga District.
The land belonged to the late Hajji Abdul Ssekitto, who, according to court records, mortgaged it to the now-defunct Cooperative Bank Limited in 1992.
Following his death, letters of administration for his estate were granted on October 19, 2017, to five of his children: Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto, Gingo Ahmed Sekitto, Nakitto Ziada, Kalule Muzafaru and Sekitto Nuru Nakiranda.
The beneficiaries claimed that their father had redeemed the land title from the bank before his death. However, in 2021, Kumar attempted to evict them, claiming that he had purchased the land from the bank through a public auction for Shs300 million.
The beneficiaries subsequently filed a civil suit challenging Kumar’s claim to the land. The court issued temporary orders restraining Kumar from taking possession of the land pending determination of the dispute.
However, three of Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto’s siblings, Lukia Naggayi, Mayimuna Nakayiza and Safina Nanfuka, later fell out with him and, in 2024, filed another suit distancing themselves from the earlier case.
When they faced eviction from the land, they sought the intervention of the then NRM chairman in Kayunga, the late Kalangwa Kaliisa Moses, to prevent Kumar from forcefully taking possession.
The three handed Kalangwa the duplicate certificate of title, which he had requested as proof that they had a genuine claim to the land.
Court records indicate that, unbeknown to them, their brother Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto had meanwhile sold the title to Kalangwa through his company, M/s Katongore International Group Limited.
Kalangwa, through the company, subsequently evicted the beneficiaries from the disputed land, except Gingo Ahmed Sekitto, who had a kraal on the property. He also prevented Kumar from taking over the land using what the court described as “security and goons.”
Kalangwa was later added to the court case as a respondent.
Earlier this month, Naggayi, Nakayiza and Nanfuka applied for a certificate of urgency to have their case heard, arguing that they were again facing threats of eviction.
Justice Mubiru granted the application and subsequently conducted a locus visit to the disputed land.
The decisions angered Kumar and Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto, who wrote to the Chief Justice, the Principal Judge and the High Court Registrar, accusing Justice Mubiru of bias.
In his ruling, Justice Mubiru said the complaints to his superiors over legitimate judicial decisions amounted to an attempt to intimidate him.
“Letters couched in more or less identical terms to the application for recusal, but neither copied to nor served upon the applicants, and not copied to the trial Judge but served upon him, were written to the Honourable Chief Justice and the Honourable Principal Judge,” Justice Mubiru said.
He noted that the complainants asked the Chief Justice to launch an administrative inquiry into his conduct, direct him to recuse himself from the matter and recall and reallocate the case file to another judge.
Justice Mubiru said recusal applications are an important safeguard against judicial bias but warned that they should not be misused to manipulate court proceedings.
“Courts are vigilant in ensuring that such motions are grounded in legitimate concerns and not employed as a bullying tactic to disrupt the judicial process or gain an unfair advantage,” he said.
The judge listed several indicators that may suggest a recusal application is being used as a bullying tactic, including attacking a judge’s character, race or background instead of citing applicable legal rules; threatening to report the judge to disciplinary bodies to force them to step aside; leaking the application to the media or the public before the hearing to damage the judge’s reputation or exert external pressure; seeking administrative intervention from the Judiciary before the application is heard; relying on weak, broad or invented grounds; and alleging bias solely because of ordinary judicial rulings or courtroom management decisions.
Justice Mubiru said recusal should be used to protect the integrity of justice rather than to facilitate forum shopping.
“The doctrine is to be applied carefully. Dissatisfaction with rulings is not sufficient. It would lead to manipulation,” he said.
He explained that a judge’s natural reaction when faced with a recusal application from a litigant who says they have lost confidence in the judge may be to consider stepping aside, even where the complaint is objectively unjustified.
However, he said judges must guard against that inclination and recuse themselves only where sufficient grounds have been established.
“While a proper application of judicial recusal guards the impartiality of the justice system, any abuse or misapplication of the recusal rules would only serve to undermine the administration and delivery of justice. Judges must resist the temptation to recuse themselves merely to avoid criticism or controversy, as this could undermine the integrity of the judicial process,” the ruling reads in part.
“This Court will not readily succumb to bullying or intimidation by a party to recuse itself. Using a recusal motion merely as a sharp practice, outright bullying and intimidation, or as a tool to change an unwanted judicial direction or delay proceedings is routinely rejected by the Courts,” he added.
Justice Mubiru further held that judges have a duty to hear and determine cases allocated to them regardless of their personal preferences or whether one or more parties would prefer another judge.
He said this obligation forms part of the judicial oath taken by every judge.
“The courts have also cautioned against granting recusal applications based on expedience or to appease unfounded concerns. A judge should disqualify himself only if his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if required by law,” he said.
Justice Mubiru said judges should not use recusal to avoid cases involving difficult, controversial or unpopular issues, parties or lawyers.
He also cautioned judges against yielding too easily to weak, nuisance or unsubstantiated recusal applications, saying such actions could undermine the administration of justice.
“Yielding to unfounded or weak claims of bias harms the administration of justice just as much as sitting when genuinely biased. Unwarranted disqualification may bring public disfavour not only to the court but also to the judge personally,” he ruled.
English 