THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 2 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 3 LIST OF TABLES ...... 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 1.1 Background and Rationale ...... 10 1.2 The Scorecard ...... 11 1.3 Judgment Reviews ...... 12 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 12 2.1 Overall Approach ...... 12 2.2 Scope of the Assessment ...... 12 2.3 Stakeholders (Respondents) Targeted ...... 13 2.4 Target sample sizes – Distribution of Respondents ...... 13 2.5 Data collection Methods and Tools ...... 14 2.6 Quality Control ...... 16 2.7 The Implementation Team ...... 17 2.8 Limitations of the Research ...... 17 2.9 Challenges...... 18 3.0 FINDINGS ...... 21 3.1 Profiles of Respondents Interviewed ...... 21 3.2 Description of Litigants ...... 24 3.3 Performance Scores ...... 25 3.3.1 Overall Scores for Higher Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 25 3.3.2 Overall Scores for High Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 26 3.3.3 Overall Scores for Chief Magistrates’ Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 27 3.3.4 Scores for Top Performing Individual Judges and Magistrates’ ...... 28 3.3.5 Higher Courts Scores by Litigants ...... 29 3.3.6 High Courts Scores by Litigants ...... 30 3.3.7 Chief Magistrates’ Court Scores by Litigants ...... 31 3.3.8 Higher Courts Scores by Legal Professionals...... 32 3.3.9 High Courts Scores by Legal Professionals ...... 33 3.3.10 Chief Magistrates’ Court Scores by Legal Professionals ...... 34 3.4 Courtroom Observations Scores ...... 36 3.4.1 Courtroom Observations per Court ...... 36 3.4.2 Overall Observation Scores ...... 36 3.5 Evaluation of the Court Performance Through the Lenses of the Judgments Delivered 2019 ...... 40 3.6 Civil Society Organizations’ Viewpoints on the Performance of Judiciary ...... 63 3.7 Court Leadership and Management ...... 65 3.8 Challenges and Recommendations: Judicial Officials views ...... 69 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 71 4.1 Conclusions ...... 71 4.2 Recommendations to address challenges ...... 71 4.3 Recommendations on Quality of Judgments ...... 72 Annex 1: Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 73 Annex 2: CSOs that Participated ...... 74 Annex 3: List of Judges and Magistrates scored by Legal professionals and Litigants ...... 75 Annex 4: List of Judges and Magistrates Observed ...... 77 Annex 5: Detailed Comments on Judgments Reviewed ...... 79
2 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Number of Interviews Conducted...... 21 Figure 2: Respondents by Territory...... 22 Figure 3: Proportion of Interviews by Court Type ...... 22 Figure 4: Number of Interviews by Court Type ...... 23 Figure 5: Number of Interviews Conducted per Court ...... 23 Figure 7: Litigants by Gender ...... 24 Figure 8: Litigants by Type ...... 24 Figure 11: Courtroom Observations per Court ...... 36
3 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stakeholders (Respondents) Targeted ...... 13 Table 2: Distribution of Respondents ...... 13 Table 3: Performance Parameters and Scores ...... 25 Table 4: Scores for the Courts ...... 26 Table 5: Summary of Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 26 Table 6: Scores for the Courts ...... 26 Table 7: Summary of Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 27 Table 8: Scores for the Courts ...... 28 Table 9: Summary of Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 28 Table 10: Scores for Individual Justices in Supreme Court ...... 28 Table 10a: Scores for Individual Judges in Court of Appeal ...... 29 Table 12: Scores for Individual Judges in High Courts ...... 29 Table 13: Aggregated Performances of Judges in High Courts ...... 29 Table 14: Scores for Individual Magistrates ...... 29 Table 15: Aggregated Performances of Magistrates ...... 29 Table 16: Litigants Weighted Score for Higher Courts ...... 29 Table 17: Assessment of Higher Courts by Litigants ...... 30 Table 18: Litigants Weighted Score for High Courts ...... 30 Table 19: Assessment of High Courts by Litigants ...... 30 Table 20: Litigants Weighted Score for Chief Magistrates’ Court ...... 31 Table 21: Assessment of Chief Magistrates’ Court by Litigants ...... 32 Table 22: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for Higher Courts ...... 32 Table 23: Assessment of Higher Courts by Legal Professionals ...... 32 Table 24: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for High Courts ...... 33 Table 25: Assessment of High Courts by Legal Professionals ...... 33 Table 26: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for Chief Magistrates Courts ...... 34 Table 27: Assessment of Chief Magistrates’ Court Scores by Legal Professionals ...... 34 Table 37: Overall Observation Scores ...... 37 Table 38: Observation Scores for Higher Courts ...... 38 Table 39: Observation Scores for High Courts ...... 38 Table 40: Observation Scores for Chief Magistrates’ Courts ...... 39 Table 33: Justices for Supreme Court ...... 75 Table 34a: Justices for Court of Appeal ...... 75 Table 35: Judges for High Courts ...... 75 Table 36: Magistrates ...... 76 Table 47: Judges - Higher Courts ...... 77 Table 48: Judges - High Courts ...... 77 Table 49: Magistrates ...... 78
4 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACC Anti-Corruption Court ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution CEPIL Centre for Public Interest Law CID Criminal Investigation Department CM Chief Magistrate COA Court of Appeal CSO Civil Society Organization DCC District Chain Linked Committee DCJ Deputy Chief Justice DPC Deputy Police Commissioner FGD Focus Group Discussion GoU Government of Uganda HC High Court HQ Head Quarters JLOS Justice, Law and Order Sector JSC Judicial Service Commission KI Key Informant LASPNET Legal Aid Service Providers Network LC5 Local Council 5 OS Office Superintendent RCC Resident City Commissioner RPC Regional Prisons Commander SC Supreme Court SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists ULI Uganda Legal Information Institute
5 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and Objectives: In August 2017, CEPIL commissioned a pilot study to develop a Scorecard Report for the Judiciary in Uganda. Given the successful launch of the inaugural Judiciary Scorecard Report, CEPIL conducted the second Judiciary Scorecard research in 2018 that incorporated experiences, learnings from the first Scorecard and increased geographical coverage for improved representation and better outputs. In 2019, CEPIL conducted the third Judiciary Scorecard research. The Scorecard report provides an assessment of key performance parameters for assessing the Judicial Officials and more importantly what the parameters reveal about the officials in terms of their weaknesses and strengths in the delivery of services to consumers and users of the justice system. This Scorecard is a practical tool that is intended to help the Judiciary achieve results which are aligned to its mission and goals; and also to achieve significant policy and organizational transformation. The Scorecard contains the core performance measurements as well as the critical drivers for success that are properly linked to the vision, mission, and strategic goals of the Judiciary.
Following extensive consultations with top management of the Judiciary, Legal professionals and other important stakeholders, six (6) parameters encompassing the core performance measures were agreed upon. That is; Fairness in the administration of justice - 45%; Impartiality – 30%; Professionalism – 10%; Certainty -5%; Behavior and attitude – 5% and; Communication – 5%.
Judgment Reviews: In addition to the parameters used to score the effectiveness and the efficiency of the institution of the Judiciary, the Scorecard examines the transformative role of the Judiciary through analysis of selected judgments from a section of the participating Courts. The objective is to assess the performance of Judges of the High Court and Justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court based on the judgments delivered in the year.
Methodology The assessment deploys both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Data was collected from twenty-four (24) Magisterial areas and Courts of record selected from the five demarcations of: Headquarters; Central region; Eastern region; Northern region; and Western region. Stakeholders consulted included Litigants, Legal professionals, CSOs, JLOS, Judges, Registrars, Magistrates, Clerks, Religious and District leaders selected with guidance from the Judiciary. Data was collected through Structured Interviews, Key Informant Interviews, Focus Group Discussions, Observations, Documentary and Judgment review. A total of 4,061 interviews were carried out with the different categories of respondents. Overall, 2918 Litigants, 581 Legal Professionals, 8 Judges, 17 Magistrates, 42 Clerks, 8 Registrars and 37 CSO officials were interviewed. A total of 449 observations were also made. A total of 261 judgments were reviewed and scored. These included 399 under the Supreme Court, 101 under the Court of Appeal, Constitutional Court 13 and 108 under the High Courts.
Limitations The assessment is not without limitation. Though representative, the assessment does not cover all Courts in Uganda. Not all Judges and Magistrates are scored by both the Legal Professionals and Litigants. The overall scores presented in the report are computed only among Judicial Officials that are scored by both groups. Not all Judges and Magistrates are observed. The number of times observed also vary for each Judge and Magistrate. It should be noted that those observed only two or less times are dropped from analysis.
6 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Results Higher Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores o The Supreme Court scored 72.8% categorized as good (70-79%). Court of Appeal scored 49.2% categorized as a low performance (below 50%).
High Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores o Overall, no High Court scored above 80% (very good or exceptional): Two (2) of the 13 Courts assessed scored a good performance 70-79 assessment score. Six (6) High Courts scored fair (60-69%) and five (5) low (50-59%) – the lowest overall.
Magistrates’ Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores o Overall, no Magistrates’ Court scored very good or exceptional over 80%: Three (3) of the 10 Magistrates’ Courts assessed scored commendable assessment score between 70-79%. Four (4) Magistrates’ Courts scored a fair score (60-69%) and two (2) low (50-59%). One (1) CM Court had a score that can be considered poor (below 50%) – the lowest overall. Kabarole Chief Magistrates’ Court at 77.8% scored the highest. Nakawa and Arua Chief Magistrates’ Courts also scored a commendably.
Litigants’ Scores The assessment made by Litigants for Higher Courts showed a commendable performance of the Supreme Court at 71.3% and a low performance for the Court of Appeal at 47.9%. The assessment made by Litigants for High Courts showed a commendable performance by the Kabarole High Court at 77.7%, followed by Commercial Division at 73.6%. The assessment made by Litigants for Magistrates’ Courts showed a commendable performance by Kabarole Chief Magistrate Court at 77.8% followed by Arua at 75.5%.
Legal Professional Scores The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Higher Courts showed a commendable performance by the Supreme Court at 74% and a low performance for Court of Appeal at 50%. The assessment made by Legal Professionals for High Courts showed a commendable performance by Kabarole High Court, followed by Jinja High Court, Commercial and the Family Division of the High Court. The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Magistrates’ Courts showed a commendable performance by CM Courts in Kabarole, Nakawa and Arua.
Observation Scores Overall, Judicial Officials scored commendably on aspects relating to being ready and prepared, presiding over with efficiency and capacity as well as being non-discriminative. On the other hand, Judicial Officials scored significantly low on the aspect of explaining reasons for delay or convening Court late. This was mostly the case for Court of Appeal, Criminal and Commercial Divisions. They were also scored low on the aspect of assigning interpreters and making effort to describe the Court process to Court users. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal scored a fair score between 60-69%. Court of Appeal was scored the least on explaining reasons for delays. Jinja High Court and Family Division nearly scored a good score of 90%. High Courts in Mukono, Mbarara and Gulu also scored commendably (Over 80%). Nakawa and Mbarara Magistrates’ Court scored a good score of 90%. Magistrates’ Courts in Arua, Kabarole, Mbale and Mukono also scored commendably (Over 80%).
7 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Civil Society Organisations’ view points on the performance of the Judiciary Members of civil society noted that most of the Judicial staff respond to the needs of those that want their services in a fair and impartial manner however it was reported that some judicial staff are not empathetic and are hard to access unless one has money to get their attention. Members of CSO’s felt that the court fees are fairly okay but would be more inclusive if accessing Court services was completely free. It was noted that accessing lawyers is a barrier since most people cannot afford them. Long distances to Courts for some members of the public makes it expensive for them since they have to spend on transport. It was also noted that whereas Court fees are reasonable, bribes which are usually demanded through or by Clerks in the name of Judicial staff makes court services expensive for most people. Important to note is that some members of the civil society assessed Judicial officials as always available for work and have do their best to reduce on the case backlog despite it being overwhelming despite lower commitment and delayed court hearings. Related to the above, most members felt that cases take too long to be concluded and in most cases no reasons are given for the delay. Whereas some members of the civil society found Judicial officials professional at their work, other members described them as corrupt lacking transparency and integrity.
Results from Quality of Judgments In terms of the number and quality of judgments, the following Judicial Officers were identified to have properly articulated judgments in terms of law precedent, reportability, and they hold great jurisprudential value;
Court Judge Commendation Supreme Court Hon. Justice Nshimye Augustine Court of Hon Jusstice Christopher Commended for his efforts in ensuring that Appeal Madrama every argument laid out has been properly considered and dealt with by the Court. Constitutional Hon Justice Kenneth Kakuru Commended for his firm and clear grasp of Court constitutional law and history, which he articulates in his judgments. As a result, his judgments not only deal with the matters before him but are also of enduring value to anyone seeking to understand constitutional law. High Court Hon Justice Stephen Mubiru Commended for his scholarly approach to judgments and the expeditious manner with which he handles the judgments.
Recommendations to Address Generay Judicary Challenges; o Increase staffing of the Judicial Officers. The Judicial Service Commission should be facilitated to carry out recruitment of more Judicial Officials and support staff. With the Administration of the Judiciary Act 2020 now in force, we hope this will be possible.
o Capacity building for Judicial Officers especially speicalised trainnings for officers of particular courts like the Anti-Corruption Court. This was also cited for cases related to metal health. o Improve remuneration. The Government of Uganda should urgently address the issue of under funding to the judiciary.
8 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
o There is need to improve availability of basic facilities for court users during court sessions including Person with Disability. o Close monitoring and evaluation of Judicial staff. This is recommended to improve attitude and commitment to work among Judicial Officers. o There is a need to frequently transfer Clerks and other support staff to eliminate the cases of solicitation of bribes in the name of Judicial Officials. o In terms of appointments and promotions, due care must be takento appoint judicial officers whose skill in a particular area would enhance of be beneficial to the particular line of appointment.
Recommendations on Quality of Judgments Supreme Court o The Supreme Court Justices should always strive to write individual judgments. Each Judge providing the reasons for judgment will always give clarity to the thoughts of a particular Judge. The main purpose of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues which leads to further development of the law in general.
o Being the precedent-setting Court, the Supreme Court should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid ambiguity. In some instances, the Court went a step further in expanding the law.
Court of Appeal o The Court of Appeal Justices should always strive to write individual judgments. Each Judge providing the reasons for judgment will always give clarity to the thoughts of a particular Judge. The main purpose of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues which leads to further development of the law in general.
o Being a precedent-setting Court to the High Court and Magistrates’ Courts, the Court of Appeal should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid any inconsistent application of the law. To that end, detailed well-reasoned judgments should be followed by a summary of the position taken by the Court.
o The habit of reproducing pleadings in judgments ought to be abandoned unless this is particularly necessary. In some cases, irrelevant parts of the pleadings are reproduced extensively and yet these do not add any real value to the judgment.
Constitutional Courts o The number of justices available in the Court of Appeal should be increased to handle the backlog
High Courts o The number of High Court judges should be increased to manage the backlog. o The Judiciary should ensure that judgment are uploaded on ULI. o Consideration should be made for anonymising certain witnesses and victims in the published versions of sensitive cases such as rape and defilement and in the case of child witnesses.
9 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Rationale Subsequent to earlier studies and consultations, it was established that there are many institutional and external inhibitions affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of the Judiciary in executing its mandate and delivery of services to the public. Despite the existence of the 1995 Constitution, public opinion is that Judiciary is structurally undermined in the way it discharges its mandate and functions thus contributing to limited progress towards the promotion and sustenance of democracy in Uganda. Some of the identified bottlenecks in this regard include: lack of transparency and politicization of Judicial appointments by the Executive leading in some instances to the appointment of incompetent Judicial Officers; defiance of court orders; direct interferences with discharge of Judiciary duties; repeated criticism of Judges and Court decisions; lack of adequate funding. In addition, over-reliance on the Executive for financial and administrative support has inadvertently bred institutional weaknesses in the form of understaffing, case backlog and more severely systemic corruption in the Judiciary. In view of this, CEPIL intends to contribute to the process of strengthening the way in which the Institution of the Judiciary works to enhance its delivery of timely, fair and efficient services to all consumers and users of the justice system in Uganda. An accountable and reliable justice system attracts public confidence in the way a country is being governed, thus promoting equity, democracy, rule of law and economic growth. Furthermore, the knock-on effect of this confidence will kindle increased foreign investments into the economy. The mandate of the Judiciary as enshrined in Article 126(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 states that “Judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the Courts established under this Constitution in the name of the people and in conformity with the law, values, norms and aspiration of the people”. Additionally, Article 128(1) states that; “In the exercise of judicial power, the courts shall be independent and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority” and, that all organs of the state and agencies shall accord the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure effectiveness in the dispensation of its obligations. As an independent institution, the Judiciary’s vision is; “Justice for All” with a mission statement emphasizing “an independent, competent, trusted and accountable Judiciary that administers justice to all”. Specific objectives of the Judiciary are to ensure that: 1. Justice is done to all irrespective of their social or economic status. 2. Justice is administered in a timely manner without delay. 3. Adequate compensation is awarded to victims of wrongs. 4. Reconciliation is promoted between parties. 5. Substantive justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities. The functions of the Judiciary are to: o Administer justice through resolving disputes between citizen and citizen and between the state and citizen; o Interpret the Constitution and the laws of Uganda; o Promote the rule of law and to contribute to the maintenance of order in society; o Safeguard the Constitution and uphold democratic principles; o Protect human rights of individuals and groups.
10 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
On this background, in August 2017, CEPIL commissioned a pilot study to develop a Scorecard Report for the Judiciary in Uganda. Given the successful launch of the inaugural Judiciary Scorecard Report, CEPIL conducted the second Judiciary Scorecard research in 2018 that incorporated experiences, learnings from the pilot and increased geographical coverage for improved representation and better outputs. In 2019, CEPIL conducted the third Judiciary Scorecard research. The Scorecard provides an assessment report of key performance parameters for assessing the Judicial Officials and more importantly what the parameters reveal about the officials in terms of their weaknesses and strengths in the delivery of services to consumers and users of the justice system. The conceivable operationalization of the Scorecard is hinged on clarity of stakeholders’ understanding of the project objective; level of commitment and participation by the key stakeholders; robustness of methodology used; representativeness and coverage of samples; quality and frequency of data collected to up-date the preceding findings rather than making judgments founded on a single point measurement. It is important to emphasize that the Scorecard Report is in no way intended to name and shame any of the officials whose performance might have been perceived to be unsatisfactory but rather to amicably seek re-alignment where necessary, and reward progress and success for commendable performance. Outputs from this Scorecard are validated with all the concerned stakeholders at various levels to obtain their input and agreement before the official release of the final report.
1.1.1 Justification of the Scorecard This Scorecard is a practical tool that is intended to help the Judiciary get results which are aligned to its mission and goals for ultimately improving quality of planned activities and services; and also, to achieve major policy and organizational transformation. Essentially the Scorecard contains the core performance measurements as well as the perceptual key drivers for success that are properly linked to the vision, mission, and strategic goals of the Judiciary. If the right performance measurements have been effectively delivered, they are usually clear, unambiguous and actionable – thus helping to shape the quality of leadership and management in the Judiciary. Furthermore, the discipline of using this tool provides a conceptual framework to the strategic planning process, management of resources, and effective communication with all the stakeholders.
1.2 The Scorecard The Judicial Scorecard is a set of parameters and related indicators designed to monitor the extent to which the Judicial Officers are performing their responsibilities. The Scorecard uses numbers, but it is not about the numbers. It is about the perception, understanding and insight required of effective leadership, for example: What is the current performance level compared to the established “controls” (performance targets, objectives, benchmarks)? What should be done to improve poor performance, reverse a declining trend, or recognize good performance? (strategy formulation). Following extensive consultations with top management of the Judiciary, Legal professionals and other important stakeholders, here-below are parameters encompassing the core performance measures that were agreed upon. 1) Fairness in the administration of justice • Implements constitutionalism • Treats both genders equally • Organization of case file • Gives clear orders and decisions based on facts, evidence & law 2) Impartiality
11 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
• Availability of case files • Informs accused of their rights • Gives time for one to explain their case • Conducts unbiased proceedings 3) Professionalism • Clearly knows & understands the case • Knowledge of law & regulations 4) Certainty • Tries to resolve cases in due time • Manages Court calendar 5) Behavior and attitude • Recognizes culture and religion of others • Always available in court as scheduled • Respects court users/controls courtroom • Explains reasons for absence 6) Communication • Communicates to court users in a polite way • Does not use odd/abusive language The Scorecard is a function of the above six principle responsibilities that are broken down into a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators reflecting statutory responsibilities and functions of the Judicial Officials or Courts.
1.3 Judgment Reviews In addition to the parameters used to score the effectiveness and the efficiency of the institution of the Judiciary, this part of the segment of the Scorecard examines the transformative role of the Judiciary through analysis of selected judgments from a section of the participating Courts. The objective is to assess the performance of Judges of the High Court and Justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court on the basis of the judgments that they have issued.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Overall Approach The assessment deploys both qualitative and quantitative techniques in which outputs from the qualitative technique reinforce the design, application, analysis and results for developing the performance indicators. Furthermore, the qualitative technique presents greater and meaningful insights, for example; “What the motivation was” as expressed by: feelings, beliefs, perceptions, needs, values, attitude which allowed an interviewer to capture these reactions without biases.
2.2 Scope of the Assessment Fieldwork was conducted for a period of four months from August to November 2019 in twenty four (24) Courts selected from; Central region; Eastern region; Northern region; and Western region. The process of reviewing judgments was conducted between January and April 2020. The subsequent processes of data capture, analysis, report writing began in February 2020.
12 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
2.3 Stakeholders (Respondents) Targeted Following the completion of reviews of relevant documents during the pilot and follow up round, the research team mapped out stakeholders’ list using a simple matrix bearing levels of importance and responsibilities of the individual user, consumer or supplier of the justice system in Uganda. The list includes Litigants, Legal Professionals, CSOs, JLOS, Judges, Registrars, Magistrates, Clerks, Religious and District leaders.
Table 1: Stakeholders (Respondents) Targeted Stakeholder Importance Responsibilities Chief Justice High Overall responsibility for administration and delivery of fair, effective, efficient and timely judicial services to all Justices High Delivery of fair, effective, efficient and timely judicial services Judges High Delivery of fair, effective, efficient and timely judicial services Chief Registrar High Administration of effective, efficient and timely judicial services Registrars High Administration of effective, efficient and timely judicial services Magistrates High Delivery of fair, effective, efficient and timely judicial services Clerks High Administration of effective, efficient and timely judicial services Office Superintendents Medium Administration of effective, efficient and timely judicial services Ministry of Justice HQ Medium Legal advice and services to the government and public JLOS (JSC; State Attorney, Medium Legal advice and services to the government and DPC, Prisons Wardens) public Legal Professionals High Receive fair, effective, efficient and timely judicial (Advocates) services Court Bailiffs Medium Authority from the judge to do what is necessary to maintain order & uphold the law District Leaders (local Low Overseeing effective, efficient and timely judicial government & political) service delivery to the public Religious Leaders Low Advocating for effective, efficient and timely judicial service delivery to the public Civil Society Organizations High Receive fair, effective, efficient and timely judicial services Litigants (victims, accused, High Receive fair, effective, efficient and timely judicial plaintiff, prisoner, witness) services
2.4 Target sample sizes – Distribution of Respondents Sample selection is purposefully made in cognition of the core beneficiaries and the administrators of the justice system – i.e. consumers, users and the institution of Judiciary in Uganda. In order to ensure representativeness geographically, the samples are then disaggregated and spread by type of Court and region as in table below.
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents
13 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Respondents / Courts Higher Specialized High Court Magistrates Total Courts Courts circuits Courts (Target) Numbers 2 5 9 10 26 1) Litigants Complainants 40 100 90 110 Victims 40 100 90 110 Witnesses 40 100 90 110 Sub-total 120 300 270 330 1020 2) Judges 6 15 9 30 3) Registrars 2 5 9 - 16 4) Chief Magistrates - - - 10 10 5) Clerks 2 5 9 10 26 6) OS 2 5 - - 7 7) Ministry Of Justice (HQ) RCC & DCC:5 Sub-total 5 8) JLOS State attorneys (DPP): 5 RPCs: 5 CIDs: 5 Prison Warders: 5 Sub-total 20 9) Private Practitioner 15 10) District Leaders LCV Chair: 5 Sub-total 5 11) Religious Leaders: 3 3 12) Cultural Leaders: 5 5 13) Civil Society + LASPNET:15 15 Total interviews 1,177
2.5 Data collection Methods and Tools All the different categories of tools are carefully structured in line with the identified parameters to elicit appropriate responses from the respective respondents. The relevant tools developed and used are: a) Structured questionnaires with semantic scales. These are administered using a direct face-to- face interview style to Litigants and Legal Professionals who frequently used the selected courts. During the interview session, each respondent is asked to rate each of the issues while making reference to the semantic scale provided. The interviewing process takes on average thirty minutes to complete. By design this process is brief enough to avoid interviewee fatigue and lack of interest in answering questions. At the data management phase, weighting is applied to reflect the individual importance of each performance indicator in line with the functioning and mandate of the Judiciary. b) Key Informant (KI) interviews – This involves use of open-ended questioning technique to solicit for opinions in a wide range of issues. In order to guide the flow of interview, a question guideline is provided to incorporate questions that trigger sufficient responses regarding the performance indicators. Specifically, this tool targets Judges, Registrars and Magistrates’ who are considered adept in the administration of justice and therefore are able to offer expert knowledge for improving service delivery within the Judiciary. In addition, this method enables the research team
14 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019 to get a better understanding and articulation of issues more than what could have been picked out from the close-ended format. c) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). This tool is deployed to bring together people of relevant leadership roles at grassroots to discuss issues concerning performances of the Judicial Officials in the selected Courts. Targeted participants are the religious leaders, local district leaders, police officials and other prominent persons in the selected judicial areas. The ensuing discussions are moderated by knowledgeable and experienced facilitators who introduce topics for discussions and help the groups to participate in lively and natural discussions amongst themselves. FGDs enable participants to agree or disagree with each other thereby facilitating free thinking about the performance indicators introduced to them, and also the inconsistencies and variation that exists in a particular community in terms of beliefs and their experiences and practices relating to service delivery by the Judiciary. Outputs from the discussions are recorded, transcribed and carefully analyzed so as to extract meaningful interpretations of issues and opinions from the respective discussion groups. d) Observation. This is a social research technique that involves direct watching of phenomena in their natural setting. A checklist of structured questions communicating the requisite persona of a Judicial Officer and his or her actions while in the courtroom is carefully administered by research assistants with experience in court and legal matters, and also trained on how to use this particular tool (See Courtroom Observation Form in the Appendix). On the scheduled day of courtroom observations, a research assistant arrives at the court premises well ahead of the opening time (i.e. 30 minutes – 1 hour before the proceedings begin) in order to correctly record the time court officials arrive, and more importantly when the court proceedings start. The research assistant takes a seat in the courtroom like any other person attending a court session and pays attention to the Judge and scores him or her using the observation checklist. The research assistants are instructed not to engage in any court deliberations but make observations as required. The tool (checklist) contains structured questions to gauge the Judicial performance and ability to follow procedural justice by a Judge or Magistrate while in a court room. The observations are scored using a five-point semantic scale ranging from one (1) on one end to five (5) at the extreme end for each aspect. At least two observation sessions (2 for upcountry Courts and 4 for Kampala Courts) are carried out in a week per Court hence a maximum of eight observations are conducted by a research assistant per court within one month. e) Documentary Review: Preceding the design and development of research tools, a review of relevant literature including strategic planning and policy documents were made in order to get a clearer understanding of the contextual framework in which the Judiciary is functioning. This process enriched the teams’ knowledge of key stakeholders and made it possible to better assess past and current performances of the Judiciary. The list of materials reviewed included: 1. State of the Judiciary Report by CEPIL: 2016 2. Concept Note - Enhancing Judicial Independence in Uganda by Promoting an Accountable & Effective Judiciary by CEPIL: 2016 to 2018 3. Court of Appeal / Constitutional Report at 18th Annual Judges Conference by DCJ: 2015 4. Number of Cases Reported by the High Court: 2015 5. Retrospective Study of the Progress, Performance and Impact of the Uganda Commercial Courts by LASER: 1996 – 2015 6. Operating Guidelines for The Justice, Law and Order Sector: 2013 7. Structure and Functions of the Judiciary: 2012 8. Judicial Integrity Committee Report: 2011 9. Parliamentary Scorecard Report: 2010
15 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
10. Local Government Scorecard Report: 2017 11. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 12. Case Backlog Reports Status from the Judiciary 2017-2018 13. The Uganda Judiciary Scorecard Report by CEPIL-2017 14. The Uganda Judiciary Scorecard Report by CEPIL-2018 15. The Uganda Judiciary Report at 21st Annual Judges’ Conference-2019 f) Judgment Reviews: In addition to the parameters used to score the effectiveness and efficiency of the institution of the Judiciary, this part of the segment of the Scorecard examines the transformative role of the Judiciary through analysis of selected judgments from a section of the participating Courts. The objective of this is to assess the performance of Judges of the High Court and Justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court on the basis of the judgments that they have issued. The judgments are reviewed and scored by a team of reputable persons of experience and expertise. The team reviews judgments that are issued by the Courts and drawing from the common law jurisprudence of what amounts to a good judgment, the judgments are scored against the following criteria: 1. The Justice’s grasp of the facts or narration of the facts (mastery of the facts) that was adduced at the trial (20 points) 2. The use of the law applicable, and precedent (20 points) 3. Whether the judgment/ruling advances the law, that is, whether it has jurisprudential value (20 points) 4. Resolution of issues, whether the law was properly applied to the facts (20 points) 5. Whether the reasons for the decision are articulated in a clear manner that can be understood even by an ordinary person (20 points).
In undertaking the above score, the evaluation also takes into account what might be regarded as mundane details, such as the: style of writing the judgment/ruling; attention to grammar through minimizing errors; and accurate citation of precedent. The total is summed out of 100 points.
2.6 Quality Control The following measures were instituted to ensure data integrity during the data collection, processing and analysis phases: a) Tools used in the 2018 Scorecard were re-used. The tools were modified after the pilot based on lessons learned. All the designed questionnaires were approved by CEPIL to ensure that their contents contained the right questions and were able to capture all the relevant issues being investigated. b) Only qualified and experienced research assistants and supervisors are recruited for the data collection exercise. They are proficient in both English and local languages used in areas where they are deployed for effective interpretation of questionnaires to respondents. c) Research assistants and supervisors are trained on their: duties & responsibilities; interviewing & supervision procedures; how to administer the questionnaires; and how to make the rightful scores when using the semantic scales. d) Briefing and re-briefing sessions are conducted for research assistants and supervisors to ensure that they understand the processes and their responsibilities; and are confident in executing this assignment.
16 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
e) All the questionnaires are double checked for completeness in the field. If any anomalies are found, they are quickly brought to the attention of the research coordinator for immediate correction. f) Spot checks are made in the field, especially within Kampala where the bulk of work is. One (1) spot check for each up-country station and three (3) spot checks for each Kampala station are conducted. This keeps the research teams in check and are able to continue their interviews in line with the protocol and instructions given to them. g) Completed quotas of field returns from all the different stations are verified by their respective supervisors and promptly couriered to the CEPIL Secretariat at the end of every two weeks. This is also proof of accountability of work going on in the field. h) De-briefing sessions are held immediately after every FGD to ensure that correct records of the deliberations are promptly captured and losses due to memory lapses are reduced during the transcription of information. i) Monthly meetings are also held by the core technical team to track the progress and confirm that any errors and challenges reported are resolved. j) Deploy one (1) supervisor for every court area. The supervisor’s role is to ensure that the research assistants comply with the interview processes and deliver all returns as expected within the stipulated time period. k) Data entry is carried out by qualified officials, and great care is taken to ensure that all the codes are properly captured from each questionnaire to guarantee reliability of outputs. SPSS is used to carry out data analysis.
2.7 The Implementation Team This research was conducted by thirty-four (34) qualified research assistants with a strong coordination and supervision by a team from the CEPIL secretariat, namely: Ms. Jacqueline Ayuya Mukasa, Mr. Francis Obonyo Alphonse, Ms. Annet Namugosa, Ms Rita Atukunda, Ms. Lydia Angwech, Mr, Gad Arthur Kisaalu and Ms. Daisy Trinity Anek. The technical consultant; Mr. Rogers Twesigye provided his technical expertise in designing the data collection tools; gathering information; data capture, processing and analysis. The judgments were reviewed and scored by a team of reputable persons of experience and expertise. The team of legal experts comprised of; Mr. Solomon Rukundo, Ms. Faith Atoo, Ms. Doreen Kansiime, Ms. Suki Lucy, and Ms. Judith Aboto. An independent review team was further set up to review and offer technical feedback on the draft report. During the inception phase, the research team developed and sought approval from stakeholders, namely CEPIL and Judiciary regarding approach to fieldwork, proposed methodology and scope of work for developing the Scorecard. This was intended to build and strengthen consensus at the beginning of the study to avoid possible misunderstanding that could negatively impact on the research processes and the eventual outcomes. Steps in the development of this Scorecard which included scope of work, identification of the target audience and implementation of fieldwork and timelines were therefore discussed and agreed upon at the initial meetings with CEPIL prior to data collection.
2.8 Limitations of the Research a) The accuracy of this subjective nature of the data collection technique, that is, use of semantic scale is dependent on a clear understanding and interpretation of each question by the participant as well as how to appropriately score it.
17 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
b) Confidence in the Scorecard report relies on the trend displayed by the data collection technique. Therefore, aggregation of data collected in more than one occasion with subsequent adjustments and validation on the assessment tool as deemed fit increases its accuracy, reliability and acceptability as it gains a foothold in the society. Periodic data collection is therefore recommended to improve on the accuracy of outputs rather than relying on results of a one - off engagement with stakeholders. c) The user index which is the basis for this Scorecard relies on how satisfied the consumer or user of justice system is. This only represents one part of the many factors that ought to be carefully considered, and together deployed in the determination of the overall performances of the Judicial officers and respective Courts. Other considerations that include political and socio-economic factors, such as, remunerations, relationship with the other arms of the government and the general welfare of the Judicial Officials have strong bearings on how they eventually perform their duties in the society. d) Limited scope. Though representative, the assessment does not cover all Courts in Uganda. This can be linked to limited financial base. e) Not all Judges and Magistrates are scored by both the Legal Professionals and Litigants. The overall performance score combines legal professionals and litigants score. However, some Judges and Magistrates are only scored by either only legal professionals or litigants. The overall scores presented in the report are computed only among Judicial officials that are scored by both groups. f) Not all Judges and Magistrates are observed. Some Judges and Magistrates do not hear any cases during the data collection period and therefore the team has no opportunity to observe and score their court performance. The number of times observed also varies for each Judge and Magistrate. It should be highlighted that those observed only two (2) or less times are dropped from analysis.
2.9 Challenges The collection of data was successfully done in the identified twenty-four (24) courts and completed within the planned timeline. However, just like in the implementation of any research, CEPIL encountered several institutional and operational challenges as elaborated below: a) Limited geographical scope due to limited financial resources. The data collection was done in the sampled twenty-four (24) courts, which might not be a fair representation of the performance of the Judicial officers. Further, only Judicial Officers that were available at a station in that particular period August to December were assessed. b) Despite the anonymity of the respondents, many of them seemed reluctant to give a fair assessment of the work perceived to be done by the Judicial officers. Off the record, the public seems to be very disgruntled with the service delivery and access to justice; however, during the interviews, very high scores are awarded. This eventually generates a different result from what is perceived as reality on the ground. c) Further still, there was delayed response from the respondents, for example, CSOs and Judicial Officers who were rarely available and willing to interact with the Research Assistants. d) The costs of data collection, including other formal and informal engagements, increase with increased samples. A more representative national outlook implies a boosting of the existing sample size hence the inherent upward adjustment in the cost of conducting fieldwork, data management and analysis. CEPIL will, therefore need to look for more funding to facilitate the planned field activities and continuity of this project. e) Mistrust and misunderstanding of the research and researchers. Some participants questioned the benefits and purpose of participation. Several felt we were on a witch hunt
18 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
for the wrong element within the Judiciary and feared that their response could be traced back to them. In turn, this influenced the response to the questions used during the data collection process. f) In some cases, there was a perception that researchers were part of a financial aid program for access to justice. For some, this perception appeared to elicit "sugarcoated" responses on performance of the Judiciary. For others, it prompted requests for legal advice and other information relating to their cases pending court. Among other requests for assistance, one woman requested that researchers arrange a lecture circuit for her to speak about the ills of not reporting or filing a case before a court of law. g) Differences in language, perspective, and personal norms. Several litigants had difficulty reading or understanding standardized and ad-hoc probing questions. Sometimes it was a language issue, as when the litigants interpreted challenges faced in accessing justice to be physical barriers/obstacles. As another example, "fairness, impartiality and Certainty" were problematic terms because litigants could not weigh in on scoring the Judicial officers owing to limited interaction with them. The research subjects lacked basic terminology or knowledge for effectively communicating about Justice Issues, including not knowing the name and nature of how to phrase the challenges they have faced while trying to access justice. Sometimes, researchers and participants operated on different assumptions. For example, some interview queries, perhaps incorrectly, attempted to separate specific legal issues from the overall objective of the research. h) Participants' psychosocial, cognitive, and perceptual limitations. Individuals with mood or cognitive issues were sometimes difficult to engage or understand. Mood problems caused distress, inattentiveness, and perseveration on a narrow range of topics during data collection leading to an array of biased data. Some with mood and motivation issues indefinitely put off or did not agree to follow-up visits. i) There were memory and confusion issues amongst participants in our studies as several could not recall and did not know any legal procedures and information because they entirely relied on their lawyers to handle the case from start finish. One woman with a land conflict could not recall the court she was in or the Judge who presided over her case. Such memory and comprehension deficits were exacerbated by these individuals having multiple issues requiring legal assistance. Some but not all litigants used records to help them remember but did know precisely what documents they were holding. j) Logistical issues. There were times when the researcher arrived at the court, and the participant was not there, had forgotten, or changed their mind about participation, despite reminder phone calls. This often invalidated the research already collected these particular participants. k) The research, as is the case with much contextual analysis, was relatively time-consuming for both researchers and participants. Participants and researchers often spent over three hours together, including as much as two continuous hours, plus multiple phone calls most especially for courtroom observations. l) Given the potential power differential between participants and researchers, a critical ethical challenge was to obtain enough information without being too demanding or intrusive. This resulted in the acquisition of limited information that in most cases, was not within the set parameters, and this made classification and categorization of data collected very difficultly. m) Questions of scientific quality, interpretation, and integration of data. In contextual data collection, it is possible to gauge and correct for data quality and the validity of interpretations during data collection activity. For example, in focus group discussions, a research assistant can verify data or test their interpretations using follow-up probes.
19 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Research assistants could have used "member checking" to verify interpretations with former participants. However, in our research, gauging data quality and our interpretations was complicated by multiple, sometimes conflicting sources of information and evidence surrounding the challenges faced when accessing justice.
In conclusion, conducting community-based or action research can be challenging but also necessary and rewarding. These challenges will facilitate future efforts to plan and execute contextual data collection, particularly among litigants and vulnerable individuals in community settings. It is also important to note that as we strive to promote access to justice by tracking and reporting on the performance of the Judiciary, new challenges will emerge. This presents its self with an opportunity for discovery and reporting of challenges unique to this type of research (e.g., focus groups on sensitive topics), populations (e.g., non-English speaking), and settings (e.g., assisted living communities). Overall, exemplary ongoing efforts to improve instrumentation and the technical quality of data collection must now be complemented with systematic steps to understand and address the challenges of collecting data in and about context.
20 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
3.0 FINDINGS
3.1 Profiles of Respondents Interviewed 3.1.1 Category of Respondents A total of 4,061 interviews were carried out with the different categories of respondents as indicated in Fig 1 below within selected Courts and judicial territories of Kampala (HQ); Central region; Eastern region; Northern region; and Western region. Interviews with Litigants, Legal Professionals and observations of Judges and Magistrates were skewed to higher numbers because of the following reasons: a) Significantly greater proportion of people who usually seek Court services fall under Litigants (complainants, plaintiff, petitioner; accused, defendant, respondent; witness; victims; and prisoner). Therefore, the number of interviews was purposely skewed towards Litigants who form an important component of consumers of the judicial services in the country. Interviews with Litigants represented 73% of all the total interviews. b) For the three different categories of respondents, three different tools were used to collect information about a particular Court. This technique cross-checks and validates the credibility of opinions recorded from three different categories of respondents.
Overall, 8 Judges, 17 Magistrates, 42 Clerks, 8 Registrars and 37 CSO officials were interviewed. In addition, 1 FGD was conducted in each of the indicated judicial territories. Each FGD constituted 8 participants (religious leaders, LC5 leadership and representatives of the cultural leaders) whose opinions are considered important in promoting social cohesion and well-being of the society.
Figure 1: Number of Interviews Conducted Total=4061
Litigants 2918
Legal Professionals 581
Observations 449
Judges / Magistrates 26
Clerks 42
CSO officials 37
Registras 8
3.1.2 Respondents by Territory A significantly large number of Litigants were interviewed over and above the other categories of stakeholders in the study group since they play a crucial role as consumers or end users of judicial services. It was also important to consult widely with the legal fraternity who frequently utilize services of the selected Courts as well jas generate sufficient viewpoints through continuous
21 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019 observations of behavior and attitudes of the Judges and Magistrates while in courts. This explains the larger proportion of interviews conducted for Litigants, Legal Professionals and observations.
Figure 2: Respondents by Territory
Litigants Legal Professionals Observation Judges / Magistrates Clerks CSOs
12 1 2 2 2 235 32 2 4 24 4 324 4 32 31 20 2 2 23 24 16 36 30 35 25 34 208 22 21 26 39 40 32 32 38 36 250 40 26
143 201 194 187 216 217 221 1048 201 122 168
Hq Kla Mengo Mukono Nakawa Kabarole Mbale Mbarara Jinja Gulu Arua Masaka
3.1.3 Litigants and Legal Professionals by Court type Of the total 3499 interviews conducted with Litigants and Legal Professionals, 60% were held at High Courts and 33% at Chief Magistrates’ Courts. Only 7% were conducted at Higher Courts (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court).
Figure 3: Proportion of Interviews by Court Type Higher Courts, 7%
Chief Magistrates' Court, 33%
High Court Circuit, 60%
(n=3499)
22 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Figure 4: Number of Interviews by Court Type
Supreme Court 84 32
Court Of Appeal 89 39
Family Division 159 49
Criminal Division 159 28
Land Division 177 26
Commercial Division 189 37
Anti-Corruption Court 204 33
High Court circuit 858 165
Chief Magistrate Court 999 172
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Litigants (n=2918) Legal Professionals (n=581)
3.1.4 Litigants and Legal Professionals by Court The highest percentage of interviews were conducted at Family Division High Court followed by Anti-Corruption Court, Commercial High Court and Nakawa Chief Magistrates’ Court. The least number of interviews were conducted at Courts in Gulu. The number of interviews conducted were significantly related to the level of activity at a certain Court. The more active a Court is in hearing cases the more Litigants and Legal Professionals were found.
Figure 5: Number of Interviews Conducted per Court
250 231 229 222 215
200 191 179 164
150 134 133 129 128 125 124 122 120 120 114 114 113 113 110 105 103 100 93
63
50
0
Key
Higher Courts HQ High courts Regional High Courts Chief Magistrate courts
23 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
3.2 Description of Litigants
Gender of Litigants: There was a strong dominance of males in the Litigant sub-category as reflected by nearly three quarters of the total number of Litigants who participated in the interview process. This can be attributed to one of two reasons; That there were more males at the Courts hence more interviewed, or more males were willing to be interviewed than females. If the former is true, this has an implication on gender access to Justice – why are there few women at Court hearings? This is a question that can be studied further in other research. It is also possible that there are more male offenders and Litigants.
Figure 6: Litigants by Gender
Female 38%
Male 62%
Litigants by Type: More than a third of the Litigants interviewed were complainants, plaintiffs or petitioners; a quarter of these were either witnesses; or the accused or the defendant; 11% victims.
Figure 7: Litigants by Type
Victim, 11% Other, 3% Complainant/Plain tiff/Petitioner, 32%
Accused/Defenda nt/Respondent, 27%
Witness, 27%
24 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
3.3 Performance Scores Generally, judicial performance evaluation is considered a process of monitoring, analyzing and using performance data on a regular and continuous basis for the purposes of transparency and accountability and for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, and the quality of justice1. Numerous studies have found that people’s trust in law and judiciary is more sensitive to the perceived fairness of the procedures and treatment – “procedural justice”- than the outcomes or decisions derived from the proceedings. In essence justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done. This explains allocation of the highest weighting to “Fairness in the Administration of justice” compared to other five parameters shown below. The performance indicators to gauge the level of service delivery in the Judiciary were based on the following parameters:
Table 3: Performance Parameters and Scores No Parameter Description Weight a) Fairness in the It represents the greatest impact of justice served to 45%. administration of justice a consumer or user. b) Impartiality It considers a non-biased actions or decisions and 30% therefore strongly supports (a) above c) Professionalism It strongly reinforces the desired behavior in the 10% administration and delivery of services d) Certainty It reinforces confidence to the consumer or user of the 5% justice system that justice will be served as scheduled e) Behavior and attitude It recognizes the general behavior and attitude of 5% the Judicial Officer f) Communication It ensures that court users are communicated to in a 5% polite way
In order to attach meaningful explanations to the score level of each indicator, we deploy a five point semantic differential scale (see below) to collect raw data from the field. The five bipolar items tend to yield more reliable findings of the likelihood or probability that a person will engage in a particular behavior. Scientifically this is the most widely used scale to measure attitudes and opinions.
Very Low Low Good Very Good Exceptional 1 2 3 4 5
Post-data processing phase, derived outputs collected from the different categories of respondents and weighted in line with the above parameters to reflect their perceived individual level of importance in the delivery of justice to consumers and users.
3.3.1 Overall Scores for Higher Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals
o 70% - 79% assessment score (Good): The Supreme Court scored a generally commendable performance score between 70-79%
o Below 50% assessment score (Poor): Court of Appeal scored low between 40-49%.
1 – ref Judicial Performance Evaluation in Ethiopia: Local Reforms Meet Global Challenges
25 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Table 4: Scores for the Courts Performance Overall Score (%) Court Exceptional +90 o Very Good 80 - 90 o Good 70 - 79 o Supreme Court Fair 60 - 69 o Low 50 - 59 o Poor Below 50 o Court of Appeal
Table 5: Summary of Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals % score Impartiality Certaint Professionalism Behavior and Communication Fairness y attitude Maximum points 100 30 5 10 5 5 45 Total 64.6 19.5 3.3 6.6 3.0 3.4 29.4 Supreme Court 72.8 22.1 3.6 7.4 3.7 3.7 32.4 Court of Appeal 49.2 15.1 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.6 21.8
3.3.2 Overall Scores for High Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals ▪ Overall, no High Court scored above 80% (very good or exceptional): Two (2) of the 13 courts assessed scored a good performance 70-79 assessment score. Six (6) High Courts scored fair (60-69%) and five (5) low (50-59%) – the lowest overall.
▪ Over 90% assessment score (Exceptional): No High Court was scored in this category.
▪ 80% - 90% assessment score (Very Good): No High Court was scored in this category.
▪ 70% - 79% assessment score (Good): Kabarole High Court at 75.8% scored the highest score. Commercial Division also scored a commendable performance score of 71.4%.
▪ 60% - 69% assessment score (Fair): Nearly half of the High Courts scored a fair performance score. This included High Courts in Jinja and Mbarara, as well as Family, Criminal, Land Divisions and Anti-Corruption in Kampala.
▪ 50% - 59% assessment score (Low): Gulu, Mukono, Arua, Masaka and Mbale High Courts scored a generally low performance score between 50-59% – the lowest overall.
▪ Below 50% assessment score (Poor): No High Court was scored in this category.
Table 6: Scores for the Courts Performance Overall Score (%) Court Exceptional +90 o None Very Good 80 - 90 o None Good 70 - 79 o HC Kabarole o Commercial Division Fair 60 - 69 o HC Jinja o Family Division o Criminal Division o Land Division
26 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Performance Overall Score (%) Court o HC Mbarara o Anti-Corruption Court Low 50 - 59 o HC Mbale o HC Masaka o HC Arua o HC Gulu o HC Mukono Poor 40 - 49 o None
Table 7: Summary of Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals % Impartialit Certaint Professionalism Behavior and attitude Communication Fairness Score y y Maximum points 100 30 5 10 5 5 45 Total 64.6 19.5 3.3 6.6 3.0 3.4 29.4 HC Kabarole 75.8 23.2 3.1 7.7 3.5 3.9 34.4 Commercial Division 71.4 22.2 3.4 7.4 3.4 3.5 31.5 HC Jinja 69.5 20.6 3.0 7.4 3.4 3.5 31.7 Family Division 67.7 20.0 3.1 7.0 3.1 3.5 31.1 Criminal Division 66.2 19.9 3.0 6.5 3.0 3.5 30.3 Land Division 66.1 20.0 2.3 6.7 3.0 3.5 30.6 HC Mbarara 65.9 18.4 2.5 7.3 2.5 3.3 32.0 Anti-Corruption 65.4 20.6 2.8 6.2 2.9 3.7 29.3 Court HC Mbale 59.6 17.9 2.7 6.0 2.7 2.7 27.6 HC Masaka 57.1 17.4 2.0 6.0 2.4 3.0 26.3 HC Arua 56.8 18.1 2.1 5.7 2.7 3.1 25.2 HC Mukono 55.5 17.0 2.0 5.8 2.2 3.2 25.4 HC Gulu 51.7 14.3 2.2 5.5 2.4 2.5 24.9
3.3.3 Overall Scores for Chief Magistrates’ Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals a) Overall, no Magistrates’ Court scored very good or exceptional over 80%: Three (3) of the 10 Magistrates’ Courts assessed scored commendable assessment score between 70- 79%. Four (4) Magistrates’ Courts scored a fair score (60-69%) and two (2) low (50- 59%). One (1) CM Court had a score that can be considered poor (below 50%) – the lowest overall.
b) Over 90% assessment score (Exceptional): No CM Court was scored in this category.
c) 80% - 90% assessment score (Very Good): No CM Court was scored in this category.
d) 70% - 79% assessment score (Good): Kabarole CM Court at 77.8% scored the highest. Nakawa and Arua CM Courts also scored a commendable performance between 70-79%.
e) 60% - 69% assessment score (Fair): Four (4) CM Courts scored a fair performace. This included Jinja, Masaka, Mbale and Mbarara CMs.
f) 50% - 59% assessment score (Low): Mengo and Mukono CM Courts scored a generally low performance between 70-79%.
27 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
g) Below 50% assessment score (Poor): Gulu CM Court scored fairly between 60-69% – the lowest overall.
Table 8: Scores for the Courts Performance Overall Score (%) Court Exceptional +90 o None Very Good 80 – 90 o None Good 70 - 79 o CM Kabarole o CM Arua o Nakawa Fair 60 - 69 o CM Jinja o CM Masaka o CM Mbale o CM Mbarara Low 50 – 59 o CM Mukono o Mengo Poor Below 50 o CM Gulu
Table 9: Summary of Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals % Impartialit Certaint Professionalism Behavior and attitude Communication Fairness Score y y Maximum points 100 30 5 10 5 5 45 Total 64.6 19.5 3.3 6.6 3.0 3.4 29.4 CM Kabarole 77.8 23.6 3.4 7.8 3.6 3.9 35.6 CM Arua 74.1 21.8 3.4 7.5 3.6 3.9 34.1 Nakawa 72.3 22.5 3.2 7.3 3.6 3.8 32.0 CM Mbale 69.3 19.8 3.4 6.8 3.5 3.6 32.3 CM Mbarara 68.0 18.0 3.0 7.7 2.8 3.3 33.3 CM Masaka 66.7 20.3 2.7 6.3 3.0 3.5 30.9 CM Jinja 60.4 19.4 2.5 5.8 2.4 3.3 27.2 CM Mukono 56.5 17.3 2.4 6.0 2.6 3.1 25.2 Mengo 55.8 16.6 2.4 5.3 2.7 3.1 25.7 CM Gulu 46.6 14.2 2.1 4.4 2.2 2.5 21.3
3.3.4 Scores for Top Performing Individual Judges and Magistrates’ Performance of Judges for higher courts was measured based on evaluation of the quality of their judgments.
Table 10: Scores for Top Performing Individual Justices in Supreme Court Ranking Name 1 HON. JUSTICE NSHIMYE AUGUSTINE 2 HON. JUSTICE MUGAMBA PAUL 3 HON. CHIEF JUSTICE BART KATUREEBE
28 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Table 11a: Scores for Top Performing Individual Judges in Court of Appeal in terms of judgements delivered. Ranking Name 1 HON. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA 2 HON. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU 3 HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN ABULU OBURA
Table 12: Scores for Top Performing Individual Judges in High Courts Performance of Judges for high courts was measured based on scores from Litigants and legal professionals and evaluation of the quality of their judgments.
Ranking Name LT & LP Quality of Overall Court Scores (%) Judgement scores 1 HON. JUSTICE GADENYA 76% 89% 83% Commercial PAUL Division 2 HON. JUSTICE WABWIRE 73% 84% 79% Commercial WEJULI RICHARD Division 3 HON. JUSTICE STEPHEN 53% 88% 73% HC Gulu MUBIRU
Table 13: Aggregated Performances of Judges in High Courts Performance Score Number scored (n=31) Exceptional +90 0 Very Good 80 - 90 0 Good 70 - 79 7 Fair 60 - 69 19 Low 50 - 59 5 Poor Below 50 NB: Based on aggregation scores from both Litigants and Legal Professionals.
Table 14: Scores for Top Performing Individual Magistrates Ranking Name LT & LP Court Scores (%) 1 HIS WORSHIP KEDI PAUL 79% Chief Magistrate Arua 2 HIS WORSHIP MWESIGA DAN 79% Magistrate G.1 Kabaroole 3 HIS WORSHIP ARINAITWE ELISHA 78% Magistrate G. 1 Kabarole
Table 15: Aggregated Performances of Magistrates Performance Score Number scored (n=30) Exceptional +90 0 Very Good 80 - 90 0 Good 70 - 79 11 Fair 60 - 69 9 Low 50 - 59 5 Poor Below 50 5 NB: Based on Aggregation Scores from both Litigants and Legal Professionals.
3.3.5 Higher Courts Scores by Litigants The assessment made by Litigants for Higher Courts showed a commendable performance of the Supreme Court at 71.3% and a low performance for the Court of Appeal at 47.9%.
Table 16: Litigants Weighted Score for Higher Courts
29 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
% Score Impartiality Certainty Professionalism Behavior and Attitude Communication Fairness Maximum points 100 30.0 5 10 5.0 5 45 Total 64.8 18.9 2.75 6.5 3.0 3.35 30.3 Supreme Court 71.3 21.0 3.5 7.1 3.7 3.7 32.4 Court of Appeal 47.9 14.3 2.4 5.1 2.3 2.6 21.3
Table 17: Assessment of Higher Courts by Litigants Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Supreme Court 71.3 • Professionalism; Fairness in Behavior and Attitude, Administration of justice; Communication; Certainty; Impartiality, Court of Appeal 47.9 • Professionalism Certainty; Behavior and Attitude; Communication; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice
3.3.6 High Courts Scores by Litigants The assessment made by Litigants for High Courts showed a commendable performance by the Kabarole High Court at 77.7%, followed by Commercial Division at 73.6%.
Table 18: Litigants Weighted Score for High Courts % Impartialit Certaint Professionalis Behavior and Communicatio Fairnes score y y m Attitude n s Maximum points 100 30.0 5 10 5.0 5 45 Total 64.8 18.9 2.75 6.5 3.0 3.35 30.3 HC Kabarole 77.7 23.3 3.2 7.8 3.5 4.0 36 Commercial Division 73.6 22.5 3.6 7.5 3.5 3.6 33 HC Jinja 69.1 19.4 3.0 7.5 3.3 3.6 32.4 Anti-Corruption 68.9 20.4 2.8 5.9 3.1 3.7 33 Court HC Arua 67.1 20.3 2.5 6.7 3.2 3.5 30.9 Family Division 66.5 19.4 3.0 6.9 3.0 3.4 30.9 Land Division 64.9 19.1 2.5 6.6 2.9 3.3 30.6 Criminal Division 63.5 18.2 3.0 6.3 3.0 3.4 29.7 HC Mbarara 63.3 16.1 2.3 7.4 2.4 3.2 32.1 HC Mbale 62.1 17.3 2.9 6.3 2.8 2.9 30 HC Mukono 57.3 15.2 2.2 5.7 2.4 3.4 28.5 HC Masaka 57.2 16.8 2.0 6.3 2.3 3.1 26.7 HC Gulu 49.7 13.2 2.2 4.7 2.3 2.5 24.9
Table 19: Assessment of High Courts by Litigants Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements • Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; HC Kabarole 77.7 Impartiality; Fairness in Certainty; Administration of justice
30 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Communication; Behavior and Commercial Division 73.6 • Professionalism; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice attitude; Certainty; • Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Certainty; HC Jinja 69.1 Administration of justice Communication; Behavior and attitude; • Communication; Fairness in Impartiality, Certainty, Anti-Corruption Court 68.9 Administration of justice; Professionalism; Behavior and Attitude; Communication; Professionalism; Impartiality; Certainty; HC Arua 67.1 • Fairness in Administration of justice Behavior and Attitude, Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Certainty; Behavior Family Division 66.5 • Administration of justice, and Attitude, Communication; Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Certainty; Behavior Land Division 64.9 • Administration of justice and Attitude, Communication; • Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality, Certainty; Criminal Division 63.5 Administration of justice Communication; Behavior and Attitude; Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Certainty; Behavior HC Mbarara 63.3 • Administration of justice; and Attitude, Communication; • Professionalism; Fairness in Certainty; Behavior and HC Mbale 62.1 Administration of justice Attitude, Communication; Impartiality; Professionalism, Fairness in Certainty; Impartiality; Behavior HC Mukono 57.3 • Administration of justice; and Attitude, Communication; Professionalism, Fairness in Certainty; Impartiality; Behavior HC Masaka 57.2 • Administration of justice; and Attitude, Communication; • Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude;
HC Gulu 49.7 Certainty; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice
3.3.7 Chief Magistrates’ Court Scores by Litigants The assessment made by Litigants for Magistrates’ Courts showed a commendable performance by Kabarole Chief Magistrates’ Court at 77.8% followed by Arua at 75.5%.
Table 20: Litigants Weighted Score for Chief Magistrates’ Court % Score Impartiality Certainty Professionalism Behavior and Attitude Communication Fairness Maximum points 100 30.0 5 10 5.0 5 45 Total 64.8 18.9 2.75 6.5 3.0 3.35 30.3 CM Kabarole 77.8 23.6 3.3 7.8 3.6 4.0 35.7 CM Arua 75.5 23.1 3.4 7.5 3.6 3.8 34.2 CM Nakawa 71.7 22.2 3.2 7.3 3.5 3.7 31.8 CM Masaka 71.3 21.8 2.9 6.5 3.0 3.9 33.3 CM Mbale 68.1 19.5 3.4 6.6 3.4 3.5 31.8 CM Mbarara 68.0 18.0 3.0 7.7 2.8 3.3 33.3 CM Jinja 62.4 18.9 2.7 5.7 2.6 3.2 29.4 CM Mukono 55.4 15.6 2.2 5.5 2.6 3.2 26.4 CM Mengo 50.8 14.9 2.3 4.8 2.6 2.9 23.4 CM Gulu 44.1 13.4 2.0 4.1 1.9 2.4 20.4
31 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Table 21: Assessment of Chief Magistrates’ Court by Litigants Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements CM Kabarole 77.8 • Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration Certainty; of justice CM Arua 75.5 • Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration Certainty; of justice CM Nakawa 71.7 • Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration Certainty; of justice CM Masaka 71.3 • Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; Impartiality; Fairness in Certainty; Administration of justice CM Mbale 68.1 • Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Behavior and Administration of justice attitude; Certainty; Communication; CM Mbarara 68.0 • Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Behavior and Administration of justice attitude; Certainty; Communication; CM Jinja 62.4 • Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Behavior and Administration of justice attitude; Certainty; Communication; CM Mukono 55.4 • Professionalism; Fairness in Impartiality; Behavior and Administration of justice attitude; Certainty; Communication; CM Mengo 50.8 Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; Certainty; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice CM Gulu 44.1 Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; Certainty; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice
3.3.8 Higher Courts Scores by Legal Professionals The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Higher Courts showed a commendable performance by the Supreme Court at 74% and a low performance for Court of Appeal at 50%.
Table 22: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for Higher Courts Behavior % Score Impartiality Professionalism Fairness Certainty and Communication attitude Maximum points 100 30 10 45 5 5 5 Total 64.4 20.1 6.7 28.5 2.8 3.0 3.4 Supreme Court 74.2 23.1 7.6 32.4 3.65 3.7 3.75 Court of Appeal 50.4 15.9 5.2 22.2 2.25 2.3 2.6
Table 23: Assessment of Higher Courts by Legal Professionals
32 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Supreme Court 74.2 Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & attitude; Communication; Professionalism; Impartiality; Certainty Court of Appeal 50.4 Fairness in Administration of justice; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Professionalism Certainty, Communication
3.3.9 High Courts Scores by Legal Professionals The assessment made by Legal Professionals for High Courts showed a commendable performance by Kabarole High Court, followed by Jinja High Court, Commercial and the Family Division of the High Court.
Table 24: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for High Courts Behavior % Score Impartiality Professionalism Fairness Certainty and Communication Attitude Maximum points 100 30 10 45 5 5 5 Total 64.4 20.1 6.7 28.5 2.8 3.0 3.4 HC Kabarole 73.8 23.1 7.7 32.7 3 3.5 3.85 HC Jinja 69.9 21.9 7.3 30.9 3 3.5 3.4 Commercial 69.3 21.9 7.3 30 3.3 3.3 3.5 Division Family Division 69.0 20.7 7.1 31.2 3.3 3.2 3.55 Criminal Division 68.9 21.6 6.8 30.9 3.1 3.0 3.5 HC Mbarara 68.5 20.7 7.2 31.8 2.7 2.6 3.5 Land Division 67.4 21 6.9 30.6 2.2 3.1 3.7 Anti-Corruption Court 61.9 20.7 6.5 25.5 2.8 2.7 3.7 HC Mbale 57.0 18.6 5.7 25.2 2.4 2.6 2.5 HC Masaka 56.9 18 5.6 25.8 2.05 2.5 2.95 HC Gulu 53.7 15.3 6.3 24.9 2.3 2.4 2.5 HC Mukono 53.7 18.9 6.0 22.2 1.75 1.9 2.95 HC Arua 46.4 15.9 4.7 19.5 1.6 2.1 2.6
Table 25: Assessment of High Courts by Legal Professionals Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Communication; Fairness in Behavior & Attitude; Certainty HC Kabarole 73.8 Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty, HC Jinja 69.9 Professionalism; Impartiality; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty, Commercial Division 69.3 Professionalism; Impartiality; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty, Family Division 69.0 Professionalism; Impartiality; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty, Criminal Division 68.9 Professionalism; Impartiality; Communication; Communication; Fairness in Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; HC Mbarara 68.5 Administration of justice; Certainty Professionalism;
33 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty, Land Division 67.4 Professionalism; Impartiality; Communication; Professionalism; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Anti-Corruption Court 61.9 Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty Professionalism; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; HC Mbale 57.0 Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Communication; HC Masaka 56.9 Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty Professionalism; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; HC Gulu 53.7 Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty Professionalism; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; HC Mukono 53.7 Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty Professionalism; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; HC Arua 46.4 Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty
3.3.10 Chief Magistrates’ Court Scores by Legal Professionals The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Magistrates’ Courts showed a commendable performance by CM Courts in Kabarole, Nakawa and Arua.
Table 26: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for Chief Magistrates Courts Behavior % Score Impartiality Professionalism Fairness Certainty and Communication Attitude Maximum points 100 30 10 45 5 5 5 Total 64.4 20.1 6.7 28.5 2.8 3.0 3.4 CM Kabarole 77.8 23.7 7.7 35.4 3.45 3.7 3.85 CM Nakawa 72.8 22.8 7.4 32.1 3.2 3.6 3.8 CM Arua 72.7 20.4 7.4 33.9 3.4 3.6 3.95 CM Mbale 70.5 20.1 7.1 32.7 3.5 3.5 3.65 CM Masaka 62.1 18.9 6.1 28.5 2.5 2.9 3.2 CM Mengo 60.8 18.3 5.9 27.9 2.5 2.9 3.4 CM Jinja 58.5 19.8 5.9 24.9 2.25 2.3 3.35 CM Mukono 57.6 18.9 6.5 24 2.65 2.6 3 CM Gulu 49.2 15 4.7 22.2 2.2 2.5 2.6
Table 27: Assessment of Chief Magistrates’ Court Scores by Legal Professionals Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Communication; Fairness in Behavior & Attitude; Certainty CM Kabarole 77.8 Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Communication; Fairness in Professionalism; Behavior & Attitude; CM Nakawa 72.8 Administration of justice; Certainty Impartiality; Communication; Fairness in Professionalism; Behavior & Attitude; CM Arua 72.7 Administration of justice; Certainty Impartiality;
34 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Communication; Fairness in Professionalism; Behavior & Attitude; CM Mbale 70.5 Administration of justice; Certainty Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty, CM Masaka 62.1 Impartiality; Professionalism; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty, CM Mengo 60.8 Impartiality; Professionalism; Communication; Communication; Professionalism; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration CM Jinja 58.5 of justice; Certainty, Behavior & Attitude; Communication; Professionalism; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration CM Mukono 57.6 of justice; Certainty, Behavior & Attitude; Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; CM Gulu 49.2 Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Certainty
35 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
3.4 Courtroom Observations Scores A tool containing structured questions was used to gauge the Judicial performance and ability to follow procedural justice by a Judge or Magistrate while in a Court room. The observations were scored using a 5-point semantic scale ranging from one (1) on one end to five (5) at the extreme end for the following aspects: a) Judge / Magistrate explains reasons for delay b) Judge / Magistrate appears ready and prepared for the case c) Judge / Magistrate presides over with efficiency and capacity d) Judge / Magistrate gives enough time and opportunity for litigants to explain their case e) Judge / Magistrate treats individuals without discrimination f) Judge / Magistrate assigns interpreters g) Judge / Magistrate takes necessary measures to ensure respect for and the order of the Court h) Judge / Magistrate makes an effort to describe the Court process to Court users i) Judge / Magistrate gives reasonable time for witness evidence
3.4.1 Courtroom Observations per Court Overall, 449 observations were made by the data collection team. The most observations were made at the Anti-Corruption Court followed by Supreme Court, Family Division and Mbale High Courts. The fewest observations were made at Mbarara High Court. The resident judge was on leave for most the time when the research was carried out.
Figure 8: Courtroom Observations per Court
45 40 40 34 34 34 35 32 31 30 25 22 22 20 19 19 17 17 17 20 16 15 15 12 11 9 8 10 6 5 5 4 5
0
HC JinjaHC
HC Gulu HC
HC Arua HC
Nakawa
CM Jinja CM
CM Gulu CM
CM AruaCM
HC Mbale HC
CMMbale
HC Mukono HC
HC Masaka HC
CM Mukono CM
CM MasakaCM
HC Mbarara HC
Land Division Land
HC Kabarole HC
CM Mbarara CM
CM Kabarole CM
Family Division Family
Supreme Supreme Court
Anti-Corruption…
Criminal Criminal Division Court of Appeal of Court
Commercial Division Commercial (n=449)
3.4.2 Overall Observation Scores Overall, Judicial Officials scored commendably on aspects relating to being ready and prepared, presiding over with efficiency and capacity as well as being non-discriminative. On the other hand, Judicial Officials scored significantly low on the aspect of explaining reasons for delay or convening Court late. This was mostly the case for Court of Appeal, Criminal and Commercial Divisions. They were also scored low on the aspect of assigning interpreters and making effort to describe the Court process to Court users.
36 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Table 28: Overall Observation Scores
–
f f
o
ourt
Total
C
Corruption Corruption
egional
Appeal Division -
Court Court
R
Commercial
High Court High
Land Division Land
FamilyDivision
SupremeCourt
Anti
CriminalDivision Chief Magistrate Chief 449 34 22 32 31 15 34 40 102 139 Number of Observations
Total (Mean) 79% 63% 60% 73% 73% 80% 89% 80% 80% 84% Judge / Magistrate explains 48% 31% 4% 64% 11% 13% 83% 49% 49% 59% reasons for delay Judge appears ready and 88% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 88% 86% 88% prepared for the case Judge / Magistrate presides over with efficiency and 87% 90% 90% 83% 90% 90% 90% 85% 86% 88% capacity Judge gives enough time and opportunity for Litigants to 87% 90% 76% 79% 90% 90% 90% 87% 86% 89% explain their case Judge treats individuals without 88% 90% 90% 76% 90% 90% 90% 85% 89% 88% discrimination Judge assigns interpreters 69% 31% 0% 54% 19% 90% 86% 72% 80% 90% Judge takes necessary measures to ensure respect for 86% 78% 90% 71% 90% 90% 90% 90% 85% 88% and the order of the Court Judge / Magistrate makes an effort to describe the Court 69% 14% 22% 63% 90% 77% 90% 79% 71% 78% process to Court users Judge / Magistrate gives reasonable time for witness 86% 50% 76% 78% 90% 90% 90% 84% 86% 89% evidence
3.4.3 Observation Scores by Type of Court The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal scored a fair score between 60-69%. Court of Appeal was scored the least on explaining reasons for delays. Jinja High Court and Family Division nearly scored a good score of 90%. High Courts in Mukono, Mbarara and Gulu also scored commendably (Over 80%). Nakawa and Mbarara Magistrates’ Court scored a good score of 90%. Magistrates’ Courts in Arua, Kabarole, Mbale and Mukono also scored commendably (Over 80%).
37 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Table 29: Observation Scores for Higher Courts Court Overall Total Court of Appeal Supreme Court Observed 449 34 22 Total 79% 60% 63% Explains reasons for delay 48% 4% 31% Appears ready and prepared for the case 88% 90% 90% Presides over with efficiency and capacity 87% 90% 90% Gives enough time and opportunity for litigants to explain their case 87% 76% 90% Treats individuals without discrimination 88% 90% 90% Assigns interpreters 69% 0% 31% Takes necessary measures to ensure respect for and the order of the Court 86% 90% 78% Makes an effort to describe the Court process to Court users 69% 22% 14% Gives reasonable time for witness evidence 86% 76% 50%
Table 30: Observation Scores for High Courts
-
Total Land Criminal Family Anti Corruptio n Arua Kabarole Gulu Jinja Mbale Mbarara Masaka Mukono Commercia l Observed 449 32 31 15 34 40 8 5 12 16 34 4 17 5 Total 79% 73% 73% 80% 89% 80% 76% 53% 85% 90% 75% 82% 80% 83% Explains reasons for 48% 64% 11% 11% 83% 49% 40% 0% 73% 90% 37% 40% 30% 30% delay Appears ready and prepared for the 88% 90% 90% 90% 90% 88% 65% 90% 90% 90% 84% 90% 90% 90% case Presides over with efficiency and 87% 83% 90% 90% 90% 85% 90% 90% 81% 90% 84% 90% 84% 90% capacity Gives enough time and opportunity for 87% 79% 90% 90% 90% 87% 90% 90% 82% 90% 81% 90% 90% 90% litigants to explain their case Treats individuals without 88% 76% 90% 90% 90% 85% 90% 57% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% discrimination Assigns interpreters 69% 54% 19% 19% 86% 72% 90% 0% 90% 90% 69% 90% 90% 90%
38 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Takes necessary measures to ensure 86% 71% 90% 90% 90% 90% 78% 90% 90% 90% 78% 90% 90% 90% respect for and the order of the Court Makes an effort to describe the Court 69% 63% 90% 90% 90% 79% 65% 0% 79% 90% 71% 65% 63% 90% process to Court users Gives reasonable time for witness 86% 78% 90% 90% 90% 84% 78% 90% 90% 90% 81% 90% 90% 90% evidence
Table 31: Observation Scores for Chief Magistrates’ Courts
ra
Court
ono
Total
asaka
Overall Overall
Arua Kabarole Gulu Jinja Mbale Mbara M Muk Nakawa Observed 449 17 11 9 19 6 22 17 19 20 Total 79 89% 84% 78% 76% 88% 90% 79% 82% 90% % Explains reasons for delay 48% 82% 70% 1% 43% 90% 90% 25% 37% 90% Appears ready and prepared for the 88% 90% 90% 79% 90% 90% 90% 84% 85% 90% case Presides over with efficiency and 87% 90% 90% 90% 84% 90% 90% 84% 85% 90% capacity Gives enough time and opportunity for 87% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 84% 90% 90% litigants to explain their case Treats individuals without discrimination 88% 90% 80% 90% 85% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Assigns interpreters 69% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Takes necessary measures to ensure 86% 90% 90% 90% 85% 90% 90% 90% 85% 90% respect for and the order of the Court Makes an effort to describe the Court 69% 90% 68% 79% 29% 70% 90% 84% 85% 90% process to Court users Gives reasonable time for witness 86% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 84% 90% 90% evidence
39 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
3.5 Evaluation of the Court Performance Through the Lenses of the Judgments Delivered 2019
Introduction In addition to the parameters used to score the effectiveness and the efficiency of the institution of the Judiciary, this part of the segment of the Scorecard examines the transformative role of the Judiciary through analysis of selected judgments from a section of the participating Courts. The objective of this is to assess the performance of Judges of the High Court and Justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court on the basis of the judgments that they have issued. The importance of having courts write good judgments was emphasized in the case of Abdullahi v State2 where the court stated:
“The writing of a judgement is an art. In carrying out this art, although each judge is free to follow his own style to produce a good judgement, it is very essential that a judge must show a clear understanding of the facts of the case, the issues involved, the law applicable and from all these to draw the right conclusion and make a correct finding on the credible evidence before him. In writing a judgement, the underlying factor is fairness to the parties to avoid doing anything that would result in any miscarriage of justice”.
In Kagoye s/o Bundala v R3 it was held that a judgment must conform to any statutory requirements that may be in existence. In her article on judgment writing,4 Justice Debbie Mortimer of Australia noted that although the proposition that judges are obliged to give reasons for their judgments is of comparatively recent origin, it is now firmly entrenched in the common law judicial system. It is against this background that CEPIL included the review of judgments as one of the prameters to score that performance of the Judiciary.
Methodology The judgments were reviewed and scored by a team of reputable persons of experience and expertise. The team reviewed judgments that were issued by the Courts and drawing from the common law jurisprudence of what amounts to a good judgment, the judgments were scored against the following criteria: (a) The Justice’s grasp of the facts or narration of the facts (mastery of the facts) that was adduced at the trial (20 points) (b) The use of the law applicable, and precedent (20 points) (c) Whether the judgment/Ruling advances the law, that is, whether it has jurisprudential value (20 points); (d) Resolution of issues, whether the law was properly applied to the facts (20 points); (e) Whether the reasons for the decision are articulated in a clear manner that can be understood even by an ordinary person (20 points).
In undertaking the above score the evaluation also took into account what might be regarded as mundane details, such as the: (a) The style of writing the judgment/ruling; (b) Attention to grammar through minimizing errors; and (c) Accurate citation of precedent.
2 Abdullahi v State (1995) 5 NWLR 125 3 Kagoye s/o Bundala v R [1959] 1 EA 900 4 Debbie Mortimer, ‘Some Thoughts on Writing Judgments in, and for, Contemporary Australia’ Critique and Comment 2018 Melbourne University Law Review Annual Lecture available at https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/2892689/07-Mortimer.pdf
40 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
The total would be summed out of 100 points. The team of legal experts comprised of; Mr Solomon Rukundo, Ms Faith Atoo, Ms Doreen Kansiime, Ms Sylivia Namawejje. Ms. Suki Lucy and Ms. Judith Aboto
3.5.1 SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. CASE TOTAL SCORE (%) 1. Alenyo Marks v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2007 Coram: Arach-Amoko; 65 Mwangusya; Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza; Mugamba; JJSC, Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC 2. Bwembi Lameck v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2018 89 Coram: Mwondha, Mugamba, Buteera JJ.SC; Nshimye, Tumwesigye Ag. JJ.SC 3. Baingana John Paul v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2016 71 Coram: Katureebe, CJ; Kisakye, Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Mugamba, JJSC 4. Bakabulindi Ali v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2017 70 Coram: Mwangusya, Mugamba, Opio-Aweri, Buteera, J.J.S.C. Nshimye, A.G. JJSC 5. Bashasha Sharif v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2018 97 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Mugamba, Buteera, JJSC; Tumwesigye Ag. JJSC 6. Batesa Malijani v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2018 86 Coram: Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mugamba, Buteera, Nshimye; JJSC 7. Oumo Ben alias Ofwono v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 20/2016 76 Coram: Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mugamba, JJSC; Nshimye Ag, JSC 8. Kaddu Kavulu Lawrence v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2018 83 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mugamba, Buteera JJ.SC 9. David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2017 96 Coram: Kisaakye, Mwangusya, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Mugamba, JJ. S.C., Tumwesigye Ag. JSC 10. Karisa Moses v Uganda, Criminal Appeal, No. 23 of 2016 84 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Buteera, JJ. S.C., Nshimye Ag. JSC 11. Latif Buulo v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2017 86 Coram: Opio_Aweri, Mwondha, Buteera, JJ. S.C., Nshimye, Tumwesigye Ag. JSC 12. Maliro Abasi alias Mabale v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2011 34 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mugambe, Buteera, JJ.S.C. 13. Muhoozi Denis & Anor v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014 86 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mwondha, Mugamba, JJ.S.C. 14. Opolot Justine & Anor v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2014 94 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza JJ.S.C. 15. Ojangole Peter v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2017 82 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwondha, Buteera, JJSC, Nshimye, Tumwesigye Ag. JJSC 16. Mwanga Moses v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2018 85 Coram: Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Mugamba, ButeeraJJ. S.C., Tumwesigye Ag. JSC 17. Musede Nankya v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2018 84 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Buteera, JJ. S.C., Nshimye Ag. JSC 18. Uganda v Ntambi Vincent, Criminal Application No. 8 of 2019 88 Coram: Mwangusya, JSC
41 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
19. Musede Nankya v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2018 84 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Buteera, JJ. S.C., Nshimye Ag. JSC 20. Sowedi Abdul alias Obongi Lawremce v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2017 86 Coram: Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mwondha, JJ. S.C., Tumwesigye, Nshimye, Ag. JSC 21. Segujja Danny & Anor. v Uganda, Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2019 76 Coram: Nshimye Ag. JSC 22. Sumbu Jean Louis v Uganda, Criminal Application No. 1 of 2019 93 Coram: Mwondha, JSC 23. Okello Alfreda & 2 Ors v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2017 87 Coram: Mwangusya, Buteera, Mugamba, JJ. S.C., Nshimye, Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC 24. Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga Guster & Anor, Miscellaneous Application No. 93 16 of 2018 Coram: Buteera, JSC 25. Wafula Robert v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2017 92 Coram: Opio-Aweri, Mwondha, Buteera, JJ. S.C., Nshimye, Tumwesigye Ag. JSC 26. Wanyanga Eremiya v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2018 87 Coram: Mwondha, Mugamba, Buteera, JJ.S.C., Nshimye, Tumwesigye Ag. JSC
CIVIL APPEALS NO. CASE TOTAL SCORE (%) 1. Ali Singer v Margaret Nankabirwa, Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2016 86 Coram: Dr. Esther Kisakye, JSC (with Tumwesigye; Opio-Aweri, Mwondha and Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JJ.S.C. agreeing) 2. Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya & 7 Ors, Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018 88 Coram: Mwangusya, Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Mugamba, JJ.SC; Nshimye, Ag.JSC 3. Elizabeth Nalumansi Wamala v Jolly Kasande & 2 Ors, Civil Application No. 29 of 80 2017 Coram: Katureebe, CJ, Arach_Amoko, Mwangusya, Buteera, JJ.SC; Nshimye, Ag.JSC 4. Hilda Wilson Namusoke & 3 Ors v Owalla’s Home Investment Trust (E.A.) Ltd, Civil 88 Appeal No. 15 of 2017 Coram: Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Mugamba, Nshimye, Tumwesigye, JJ.S.C. 5. Prof. Frederick E. Ssempebwa, SC & 2 Ors v Attorney General, Civil Application No. 93 05 of 2019 Coram: Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Mwondha, Mugamba, Buteera, JJ.SC; Nshimye, Ag. JSC 6. Isaya Kalya & 2 Ors v Moses Macekenyu Ikagobya, Miscellaneous Application No.2 8 96 of 2015 Coram: Opio-Aweri, JSC (Dissenting) 7. Kasoma Fred v Sembatya James, Civil Application No. 18 of 2016 90 Coram: Katureebe, Arach-Amoko, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Mugamba, JJ. S.C., Tumwesigye Ag. JSC 8. Lweza Clays Ltd & Anor v Tropical Bank & Anor, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 93 31 of 2018 Coram: Buteera, JSC 9. Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka v Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018 97 and Karuhanga Kafureeka Gerald & 5 Ors v Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal
42 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
No. 3 of 2018 and Uganda Law Society v Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal No. 4 of 2018 Coram: Katureebe, CJ 10. Mohammed Mohammed Hamid v Roko Construction Limited, Miscellaneous Cause No. 98 18 of 2017 Coram: Katureebe, Arach-Amoko, Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JJ. S.C., Tumwesigye Ag. JSC 11. Sunday Edward Mukooli v Administrator General, Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2016 96 Coram: Katureebe, CJ, Tumwesigye, Arach-Amoko, Opio-Aweri, Mwondha, JJSC 12. Parliamentary Commission v Mwesigye Wilson, Constitutional Appeal No. 8 of 2016 98 Coram: Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, Mwondha, Opio-Aweri, Mugamba, JJ. S.C., Tumwesigye, Nshimye Ag. JSC 13. UTODA v URA, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2018 91 Coram: Tumwesigye, Ag. JSC (Mwangusya, Buteera, Mwondha, JJ. S.C., Nshimye, Ag. JSC agreeing)
Comments from the Review Team 1) A total of 39 copies of judgments were reviewed but for purposes of the Scorecard we focused on substantive judgments and not rulings. 26 of the judgments we evaluated were criminal appeals. 2) It was not possible therefore to evaluate individual performance in the majority of the judgments reviewed. Most of the judgments were panel decisions with no single member of the panel being identified to score. 3) In some notable decisions, the Supreme Court commendably played its transformative leadership role by looking into the substance of the matter to arrive at a just decision. The following decisions deserve special mention:
Parliamentary Commission v Mwesigye Wilson, Constitutional Appeal No. 8 of 2016 The respondent filed a petition against the appellant and the Attorney General arguing that Section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members) Act, is unconstitutional and contravenes Article 93 of the 1995 Constitution. The respondent argued that Parliament had, on numerous occasions, increased the emoluments of its members by resolution using Section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act. He contended that this was contrary to Article 93 of the Constitution, which requires such action to be originated by a bill or a motion on behalf of Government. Section 5 of the Parliamentary (Remuneration of Members of Parliament) Act was declared unconstitutional and struck off. The appellant was aggrieved by this declaration and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the wording of Section 5 allows Parliament to amend the Schedule to the Act without recourse to Article 93 of the Constitution. This is inconsistent with the said provision of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court was therefore right in declaring the impugned Section 5 of the Act as unconstitutional. The holding by the Constitutional Court that the resolution for increase of emoluments must be moved on behalf of Government since it would create a charge on the Consolidated Fund was right. Article 93 of the Constitution is more about the entry- point when a motion, a bill or amendment that has the effect of an increase of the charge on the Consolidated Fund must be introduced on behalf of Government and not Parliament. Court stated: “ if section 5 of the Act is left on our statute books, it is bound to be used by Parliament to violate the Constitution. The idea is that the appellant should not increase the emolument of members of Parliament in disregard of the mandatory requirement under Article 93 because of Articles 82 and
43 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
85 of the Constitution together with the impugned section 5 of the Act. The Constitutional Court therefore made the right decision and it cannot be faulted.”
Mohammed Mohammed Hamid v Roko Construction Limited, Miscellaneous Cause No. 18 of 2017 The parties entered into a construction agreement where the respondent was to construct a residential house for the applicant for a total sum of 1,100,000,000/=. The applicant defaulted in payment for a sum of Ushs 584,430,571 upon which the respondent terminated the contract. The respondent referred the matter for arbitration and was a successful party. The applicant was ordered to pay Ushs 584,430,571 to the respondent for the work carried out together with interest at 18% p.a from the date of filing the arbitration till payment in full, general damages of 100,000,000/= with interest at 18% p.a from the date of the award till payment in full. Dissatisfied, the applicant instituted an application in the High Court to set aside the arbitral award and was successful. The respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeal which overturned the decision of the High Court. The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Court which court found that the coram in the Court of Appeal was not properly constituted and thereby set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and returned the matter to the Court of Appeal to constitute a proper coram and decide the matter in accordance with established procedure. Upon rehearing the matter, the Court of Appeal still reversed the decision of the High Court and reinstated the Arbitral Award in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved, the applicant then appealed again to the Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondent. The applicant then filed an application for review of the judgment which court found not have no imminent threat of execution.
Recommendations 1) The Supreme Court Justices should always strive to write individual judgments. Each Judge providing the reasons for judgment will always give clarity to the thoughts of a particular Judge. The main purpose of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues which leads to further development of the law in general.
2) Being the precedent setting Court, the Supreme Court should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid ambiguity. In some instances the Court went a step further in expanding the law to the fullest extent possible.
Award for Best Performing Justice of Supreme Court In terms of the number and quality of judgments, the deserving award is to Hon Hon. Justice Nshimye Augustine. Hon Justice Nshimye’s judgments are properly articulated in terms of law and precedent and several of these judgments are of great jurisprudential value and reportable.
3.5.2 COURT OF APPEAL The role of the appellate court as articulated in Pandya v R5 and Kifamunte Henry v Uganda6 is to re-appraise and re-evaluate the evidence presented before the trial court and the materials thereto. In Ntambala v Uganda7 the Supreme Court held that the appellate court must make up its own mind not disregarding the judgment appealed from but carefully weighing and considering it. The cases below were evaluated with these principles as the benchmark.
5 Pandya v R [1957] EA 336 6 Kifamunte Henry v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997 7 Ntambala v Uganda [2018] UGSC 1
44 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
NUM CASE AND CORAM TOTAL BER SCORE (%) 1. Abale Muzamil v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 039 of 2014. 90 Coram; Kenneth Kakuru, Ezekiel Muhanguzi, Christopher Izama Madrama, JJA 2. Abiti Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2015) 90 Coram; Owiny-Dollo, Dcj; Musota And Tuhaise, JJA 3. Ading Andrew v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.769 of 2014) 88 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Obura & Madrama, JJA 4. Afro Motors Ltd & Okumu-Ringa Patrick v Ministers of Finance, Planning and 83 Economic Development & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No.203 of 2006) Coram; Kenneth Kakuru, Stephen Musota, Christopher Izama Madrama, JJA 5. Attorney General v Dr. Anthony Jallon Okullo (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2016) 88 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Barishaki Cheboroin And Tuhaise, JJA 6. Ag & Kcca v Erias Lukwago Lord Mayor Kampala Capital City Civil Application No. 61 116 of 2014. Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 7. Attorney General v Walugembe Daniel Civil Miscellaneous Application/Cause No. 69 390 of 2018) [2019] Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 8. Agaba Lilian & Amutuheire Patrick v Uganda Criminal Appeals No. 226 of 2019 83 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Obura & Madrama, JJA 9. Airtel Uganda Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2013) 90 [2019] Coram; Kenneth Kakuru, Ezekiel Muhanguzi & Christopher Madrama, JJA 10. Akech Veronica v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2016) [2019] 89 Coram; Elizabeth Musoke, Hellen Obura & Ezekiel Muhanguzi, JJA 11. Akkermans Industries Engineering v Attorney General (CiVil Appeal No. 88 of 69 2009) [2019] Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musoke & Obura, JJA 12. All Muss Properties (U) Ltd & 2 Ors v CTM Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application 78 No.379 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 134 Coram; Musoke, Cheborion & Obura, JJA 13. Alyao Moses v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2016) [2019] 77 Coram; Kakuru, Tuhaise & Kasule, JJA 14. Anatoli Batabane v Surgipharm Limited (Civil Appeal No. 218 of 2013) [2019] 90 UGCA 152 Coram; Kiryabwire, Muhanguzi & Madrama, JJA 15. Apolo Senkeeto v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 146 of 2018) 75 Coram; Barishaki Cheborion, JJA 16. Arinaitwe Richard v Uganda ( 87 Coram; Musoke, Muhanguzi & Obura, JJA 17. Asiimwe John v Attorney General Civil Appeal No. 050 of 2009 85 Coram; Alphonse C. Owiny Dollo, Kenneth Kakuru & Remmy Kasule, JJA
45 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
18. Atukwasa Jonan & 6 Others v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2018) 81 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Obura & Madrama, JJA 19. Alawi Sekandi & Sarah Ssozi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2014) 73 Coram; Kiryabwire, Barishaki & Musota, JJA 20. Ayer Isaac v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2019) 77 Coram; Kakuru, Tuhaise & Kasule, JJA 21. Ayesiga Suluman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0294 of 2015) 78 Coram; Musota, Tuhaise & Obura, JJA 22. Baligeya Patrick & Lubega Reagan v Uganda Civil Appeal No. 234 of 2010 80 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 23. Balikowa Masudi & Sadic Olobo v Uganda Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2010 72 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA 24. Bamulanzeki Zubairi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2015) 74 Coram; Musoke, Muhanguzi & Kasule, JJA 25. Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v Gamuli Tukahirwa Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2016 86 Coram; Owiny Dollo, Kakuru & Kasule, JJA 26. Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v Gamuli Tukahirwa Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2016 86 Coram; Owiny Dollo, Kakuru & Kasule, JJA 27. Benon Burora v Rubahamya Stephen Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2012 80 Coram; Kiryabwire, Muhanguzi & Madrama, JJA 28 Berocan Robert & Nakalyango Grace v Uganda 68 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA 29. Bigirimana Vincent v Uganda Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2000 82 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Obura & Madrama, JJA 30. Bishop Balagadde Ssekadde & 5 Others v Moses Wamala & 2 Others Civil Appeal 85 No. 0027 of 2011) Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musoke & Obura, JJA 31. Bismillah Trading Limited v Falcon Estates Limited (Civil Appeal No.328 of 2018) 85 Coram; Ezekiel Muhanguzi, JA 32. Bunje Paul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0236 of 2017) 83 Coram; Musoke, Muhanguzi & Kasule, JJA 33. Butera Edward v Mutalemwa Godfrey Civil Application No.0391 of 2017 83 Coram; Musoke, Barishaki & Obura, JJA 34. Buwaso Paul v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2010 80 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 35. Byahugwaho Zebrone & Sembabule District Land Board v Nakabonye Eseza 86 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 36. Chelongoi Simon v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 53 of 2018) 74 Coram; Cheborion Barishaki, JA 37. A.S Virdee T/A Planning & Design Associates v Mada Holdings (U) Ltd Civil Appeal 82 No.69 of 2005 Coram; Owiny Dollo, Egonda-Ntende & Obura, JJA
46 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
38. David May v Busitema Mining Cie Ltd Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2010 86 Coram; Kakuru, Muhanguzi & Tuhaise, JJA 39. Diamond Trust Bank Uganda Ltd v Eldreda Muchope CiVil Application No. 131 of 86 2009 Coram; Owiny Dollo, Kakuru & Musota, JJA 40. Dina Okidi & Okidi Angol v George Willy Odwong Civil Appeal No.233 of 2015 85 Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 41. Doshi Hardware Ltd v Security Group (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 0064 of 2011) 83 Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Madrama, JJA 42. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No.33 of 2011) 78 Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire, Musoke, Barishaki & Musota, JJA 43. Ederema Tomasi v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2014 86 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 44. Egesa John v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2014 85 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 45. Engineer John Eric Mugyenzi v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd Civil Appeal 83 No.167 of 2018) [2019] Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 46. Ephraim Mwesigwa v The Management Committee of Nyamirima Primary School 85 (Civil Appeal No. 0101 of 2011) [2019] Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Barishaki & Tuhaise, JJA 47. Ernest Enzama v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 0323 of 2015 85 Coram; Musoke, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 48. Filda Ejon v Concy Ejon CiVil Appeal No. 21 of 2017 85 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Madrama, JJA 49. Foods and Beverages Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2012) 69 Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 50. Formula Feeds & 3 Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited Civil Appeal No. 0076 ff 91 2016) Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Madrama, JJA 51. Francis Kimbugwe & 5 Others v Deus Birungi (Consolidated Civil Appeals No. 186 95 And 226 of 2013) Coram: Kiryabwire, Egonda-Ntende, & Barishaki, JJA 52. Frostmark EHF (Through Its Attorney John Kabandize) V Uganda Fish Packers Ltd 86 (Civil Appeal 114 of 2011) Coram: Tuhaise, Barishaki, & Fredrick Eginda-Ntende, JJA
53. Gagawala Mutajazi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 209 of 2014) 84 Coram;Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 54. Galina Kyobe (Administrator of The Estate of Dan Kyobe) v Daniel Kibuuka-Musoke 85 & Commissioner Land Registration (CiVil Appeal 42 of 2016) Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Madrama, JJA
47 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
55. Godfrey Ssentongo v David Balya Katumba (Civil Appeal 266 of 2017) 83 Coram; Kakuru, Muhanguzi & Madrama JJA 56. Geoffrey Kazinda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 83 of 2013) 82 Coram; Kiryabwire, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 57. Gerald Nsubuga v Petwa Rwomushoro (Civil Appeal 102 of 2012) 82 Coram; Owiny Dollo, Kakuru & Musota, JJA 58. Geresom Rwambogo v Tereza Kyatifu (Civil Appeal 55 of 2009) 86 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musoke & Obura, JJA 59. Habre International Ltd v Dabo Kalilou (Civil Appeal 08 of 2012) 86 Coram; Kenneth Kakuru, Stephen Musota & Christopher Madrama, JJA 60. Hajji Abubaker Mulimira v Rev E.N.N & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 157 of 2012) 78 Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Kasule, JJA 61. Hamanya John v Ntungamo District Local Government Council (Civil Appeal 110 of 80 2012) Coram; Owiny Dollo, Kakuru & Musota, JJA 62. Harriet Babirye & 3 Others v Pascal Mbazira (Civil Appeal 77 of 2012) 82 Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 63. Hellena Namazzi v Banada Kayondo & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal 289 of 2016) 82 Coram; Owiny Dollo, Kakuru & Tuhaise, JJA 64. Historic Resources Conservation Initiative & 3 Others v Attorney General (Civil 86 Appeal 57 of 2012) Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Madrama, JJA 65. Hope Mukankusi v Uganda Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2011) 82 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musoke & Obura, JJA 66. Hosea Sonko & 12 Ors v Dick Banoba (Misc. Application 122 of 2018) 85 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musoke & Obura, JJA 67. Ikiror Kevin v Orot Ismael (Election Petition Appeal 106 of 2016) 85 Coram; Alphonse C. Owiny Dollo, Remmy Kasul & Hellen Obura, JJA 68. A 2 Z Infra Engineering Ltd v Forest City Engineering Technical Services Ltd (Civil 83 Appeal 47 of 2016) Coram; Obura, Musota & Madrama, JJA 69. Irene Kalibala v Michael Robert Mugyenyi (Civil Appeal 41 of 2011) 77 Coram; Obura, Muhanguzi & Musota, JJA 70. Isaac Tumusiime v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 110 of 2012) 83 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA
71. Isabirye Magemeso Awali v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 236 of 2010) 78 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 72. Isingoma Abubaker v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 24 of 2018) 82 Coram; Kiryabwire, Muhanguzi & Madrama, JJA 73. Jagwe Musitafa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 694 of 2014) 88 Coram; Musoke, Muhanguzi & Kasule, JJA
48 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
74. James Mufumbiro v Unilever Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 168 of 2012) 70 Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Madrama, JJA 75. Joe Ssemugooma v Uganda (Criminal Application 145 of 2018) 85 Coram; Barishaki Cheborion, JA 76. John Kibyami v Mission & Relief Transport (Civil Appeal 162 of 2013) 85 Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Barishaki, JJA 77. John Muhanguzi & 5 Others v Uganda (Consolidated Criminal Appeals 723, 734, 80 735 & 742 of 2014) Coram; Musoke, Obura & Madrama, JJA 78. Jover Byaruhanga v Okullu Silver Cohens & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2008 75 Coram; Obura, Musoke & Egonda-Ntende, JJA 79. Kabandize John Baptist & 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal 82 36 of 2016) Coram; Kakuru, Muhanguzi & Madrama, JJA 80. Kabaza Jackson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 9 of 2013) 86 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musoke & Obura, JJA 81. Kafero Paul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 523 of 2014) 85 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA 82. Kagwa John Ssenyondo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 55 of 2015) 83 Coram; Musoke, Muhanguzi & Kasule, JJA 83. Kagoro Deo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 82 of 2011) 82 Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Obura & Madrama, JJA 84. Kajubi Ronald v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 613 of 2014) 82 Coram; Musoke, Muhanguzi & Kasule, JJA 85. Kakaire Iguru Ali & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 784 of 2014) 84 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 86. Kakaire Yakoub & 4 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 776 of 2014) 82 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA 87. Kalenzi Faruku v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 282 of 2011) 82 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 88. Kalongo Johnson & 2 Others V Uganda (Criminal Appeal 530 of 2015) 85 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA 89. Kamadi Longovu v Sauda Nandawula & 4 Others (Civil Appeal 135 of 2014) 83 Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 90. Kamugisha Bernard v Uganda (Crim. Mis Application 47 of 2019) 85 Coram; Kakuru, Musota & Madrama, JJA 91. Kansiime Andrew v Himalaya Traders & 7 Ors (COA-CV-Cl-0209-2019) 83 Coram; Madrama, JA 92. Kansiime Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 616 of 2014) 85 Coram; Musoke, Muhanguzi & Kasule, JJA
49 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
93. Kanyankore Bernard & 4 Ors v Baligira Yofesi & 7 Ors (CiVil Application 30 of 82 2018) Coram; Egonda-Ntende, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 94. Karakire Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 504 of 2015) 85 Coram; Musoke, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 95. Katongole Arajabu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 566 of 2015) 86 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA 96. Kawere John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 281 of 2011) 86 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA 97. Kawooya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 512 of 2014) 83 Coram; Musoke, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA 98. Kawooya Kigongo v Attorney General & Judicial Service Commission (Civil 82 Application 347 of 2018) Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Madrama, JJA 99. Kayabura Enock & 2 Others v Joash Kahangwire (Civil Appeal 88 of 2015) 90 Coram; Kakuru, Kiryabwire & Madrama, JJA 100. Kayondo Andrew & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 748 of 2014) 86 Coram; Barishaki, Musota & Tuhaise, JJA
Comments from the Review Team 1) A total of 100 copies of judgments were reviewed but for purposes of the Scorecard we focused on substantive judgements and not rulings. 2) In some notable decisions, the Court of Appeal commendably played its appellate role. The following decision deserves special mention:
Airtel Uganda Limited v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2013) [2019] UGCA 2022 Airtel objected to a tax assessment by the URA and instituted a suite in the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) on the 19th May 2004 and paid 30% of the disputed tax as required by the law. TAT and the High Court on appeal there from upheld the assessment and Airtel’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. Airtel then paid the outstanding tax balance of Shs 428,269,883/= which had been withheld pending resolution of the Appeal through TAT. On payment of this sum the URA then made a demand for interest on the sum being a total of Shs 1,555,836,915/= which additional demand Airtel objected to. URA contended that the interest imposed was by Statute under the VAT Act and not from the decision/judgment or decree of the Courts and or Tribunal. The Court of Appeal held that:
“A person who has objected to a tax assessed, appealed against it, paid 30% of the assessed tax, paid interest on arrears cannot in our view be penalised for having sought redress from the Tax Appeals Tribunal. The law in our view protects him or her from penalties during the period of dispute resolution. To hold otherwise would create an absurdity in which a person appealing a tax assessment is treated as a criminal tax defaulter under Section 65(3) of the Value Added Tax Act and penalized by imposition of a penal tax. Such person would have been wrongly put in the same position as a smuggler or a tax cheat. With all due respect we do not accept the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge on this question of law.”
Kakaire Iguru & Anor v Uganda (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2019) [2019] UGCA 2011
50 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Appellants were indicted and convicted of the offence of armed robbery and sentenced to 14 years. The appellants appealed against the sentence arguing that it was harsh and did not consider mitigating circumstances. The appellants had broken into a house at 11pm and beaten the victim’s wife while he hid. They held a knife as a weapon. They demanded the key to his motorcycle and money. She gave them UGX 200,000 in a bid to save her life. They also took the mobile phone. The victim came out of hiding to recuse the wife and was cut on his hand. The appellants argued that they are just 22 and 24 years old therefore the sentence was too harsh. The court found that the sentencing judge had not taken the remand period into account and on those grounds set aside the sentence. The court now sentenced the appellants to 12 years having taken into account the one year on remand.
Recommendations 1) The Court of Appeal Justices should always strive to write individual judgments. Each Judge providing the reasons for judgment will always give clarity to the thoughts of a particular Judge. The main purpose of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues which leads to further development of the law in general. 2) Being a precedent setting Court to the High Court and magistrate courts, the Court of Appeal should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid any inconsistent application of the law. To that end, detailed well-reasoned judgments should be followed by a brief summary of the position taken by the court. 3) The habit of reproducing pleadings in judgments ought to be abandoned unless this is particularly necessary. In some cases clearly irrelevant parts of the pleadings are reproduced extensively and yet these do not add any real value to the judgment.
Award for Best Performing Justice of Court of Appeal In terms of the number and quality of judgments, the deserving award is to Hon Justice Christopher Madrama. Hon Justice Madrama’s judgments are properly articulated in terms of law and precedent and several of these judgments are of great jurisprudential value and reportable. Justice Madrama is particularly commended for his efforts in ensuring that every argument laid out has been properly considered and dealt with by the court.
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Article 137(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda provides that any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution shall be determined by the Court of Appeal sitting as the Constitutional Court.
No Case and Coram Total Score (%) 1. Barihaihi Grace Peter and Fred Biryomumaiso v Attorney General Constitutional 90 Petition No. 23 of 2011 Coram: Owiny-Dollo, DC J., Kakuru, Egonda-Ntende, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA Egonda Ntende JA Lead Judgment 2. British American Tobacco v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 46 of 2016 75 Coram: Owiny-Dollo, DCJ., Kakuru, Egonda-Ntende, Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA Kenneth Kakuru JA Lead Judgment 3. Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2011 88
51 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Coram: Barishaki, Kakuru, Kiryabwire, Musoke & Musota, JJA, Kenneth Kakuru JA Lead Judgment 4. Maurice Alex Muhwezi v Busitema University and Attorney General Constitutional 90 Petition No 50 of 2011 Coram: Barishaki, Kakuru, Muhanguzi, Musoke & Musota, JJA, Kenneth Kakuru JA Lead Judgment 5. Eddie Kwizera v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 20 of 2018 88 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Barishaki, Madrama, JJA/JJCC, Christopher Madrama JA Lead Judgment 6. Francis Atugonza v Brig James Mugira and Others Constitutional Petition No 28 of 88 2011 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Barishaki, Madrama, JJA/JJCC 7. Kasande Sylvi v Uganda Constitutional Reference No 52 of 2010 85 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Obura, Muhanguzi, JJA/JJCC Egonda Ntende JA Lead Judgment 8. Mbabali Jude v Edward Kiwanuka Constitutional Petition No 28 of 2012 70 Coram: Egonda Ntende JA 9. Muyambi v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 26 of 2011 90 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Barishaki, Muhanguzi, JJA/JJCC, Egonda Ntende Lead Judgment 10. Mwandha v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 5 of 2007 88 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Obura, Muhanguzi, JJA/JJCC Kenneth Kakuru Lead Judgment 11. Olara Otunu v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 12 of 2010 88 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Barishaki, Muhanguzi, JJA/JJCC, Kenneth Kakuru Lead Judgment 12. Rogers Kinobe v Attorney General and Uganda Revenue Authority Constitutional 85 Petition No 01 of 2016 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Madrama, Muhanguzi, JJA/JJCC, Christopher Madrama Lead Judgment 13. Turyomurugyendo v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 25 of 2009 90 Coram: Owiny Dollo, DCJ, Kakuru, Egonda Ntende, Obura, Muhanguzi, JJA/JJCC
Comments from the Review Team 1) A total of 13 copies of judgments were reviewed but for purposes of the Scorecard we focused on substantive judgments and not rulings. 2) In some notable decisions, the Constitutional Court played its role of interpreting the Constitution commendably. The following decisions deserves special mention:
Kasande & Another v Uganda (Cosntitutional Reference No. 52 of 2010) [2019] UGCC 6 In this case the applicants were detained on charges of embezzlement for over two weeks before they were formally charged before a magistrate. The DPP subsequently withdrew the case from the magistrates’ court and reinstated it in the Anti-Corruption Court following which there was an 18-month delay in prosecuting the case. The hearing had to be adjourned on 13 different occasions due to excuses from the DPP and the presiding magistrate was twice unavailable. In giving the lead judgment upon a constitutional reference, Justice Egonda Ntende gave a scathing critique of the prosecution’s obnoxious behaviour in this case stating:
52 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
It has not been suggested that this was a complex and time consuming case which was difficult to prosecute or that some impediments had been thrown in the way to frustrate its prosecution. What is apparent is that the state was not mindful of its obligation to proceed with expedition. It was lax… The trial was conducted with reckless disregard to both the public interest in bringing criminal trials to their logical conclusion, and to the accused person’s right to a fair and speedy trial. It is now almost a decade since the accused were charged and their case was never fully heard. Passage of time affects the ability of both sides to present their cases, including the accused persons to put their defence. Sometimes the memories of witnesses fade and at times witnesses become unavailable... There is no evidence that there were limited institutional resources to expeditiously try the case and in any case the state is obliged to provide the necessary resources to ensure effective administration of justice.
Barihaihi Grace Peter and Fred Biryomumaiso v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2011 The petitioners were arrested in 2002 and charged with treason. They were on remand for over a period of one year and eventually granted bail by the Chief Magistrate Court at Buganda Road. They answered bail before the magistrate's court for over a period of 9 years in accordance with the terms of the bail. The petitioners claim to have made many complaints to the magistrate’s court to that effect. The court on all occasions stated that it had no jurisdiction to discontinue the proceedings against the respondent, to try the case or to order the DPP to commit the case for trial to the High Court. They eventually filed an application for judicial review in the High Court which quashed the proceedings and awarded the petitioners damages. The above events aggrieved the petitioners who now sought a declaration that Section 1 of the Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 is inconsistent with Articles 28( 1), 28(3)(c), 28(3)(e), 23(3), and 23(6)(a) of the Constitution in that a person charged by an offence triable by the High Court cannot take a plea when the charge is read to him or her during committal proceeding due to the fact that an accused person appears before a court that has no power to take a plea contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Constitution that requires that a person be produced before a court of competent jurisdiction to determine his or her rights. They also contended that an accused appearing before a magistrate's court with no jurisdiction to try the case is an infringement on the accused's right to a fair and speedy hearing before a competent, independent and impartial court. The court rejected this argument noting that committal proceedings are a procedural mechanism that does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. Justice Egonda-Ntende stated as follows:
“In my view committal proceedings are intended to promote the right to a fair trial. Committal proceedings do not infringe on an accused’s right to a fair hearing. Under section 168 of the Magistrate’s Courts Act, the court must explain to the accused person the nature of the charge against him or her during committal proceedings. The substance of the indictment and summary of the case is read to the accused person and copies of the same are availed to him or her. These must contain particulars that are necessary to give the accused person reasonable information as to the nature of the offence with which he or she is charged. This is to enable the accused person to prepare for his or her defence. The accused can also apply for pre-trial disclosure of material statements and exhibits subject to the discretion of the trial court.”
Recommendations Increasing the number of justices available in the Court of Appeal to handle the backlog
Award for Best Performing Justice of Constitutional Court
53 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
In terms of the number and quality of judgments, the deserving award is to Hon Justice Kenneth Kakuru. Hon Justice Kakuru’s judgments are properly articulated in terms of law and precedent and several of these judgments are of great jurisprudential value and reportable. In particular Hon Justice Kakuru is commended for his firm and clear grasp of constitutional law and constitutional history which he articulates well in his judgments. As a result, they not only deal with the matter before him but are also of enduring value to anyone seeking to understand constitutional law.
HIGH COURT
54 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
No Case and Coram Total Score (%) 1. Kabugo Yusuf vs Lukwago Musoke Solomon and 3 others HCT-00-CC-OS-0572- 37 2013, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 2. Hon. David Pulkol v Hon. Auma Juliana Modest, HCCS No.112 of 2014 46 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 3. Hall Mark Enterprises Friends Sacco Ltd v Kwesiga Stephen, HCCS No. 657 of 2017 42 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 4. Fountain Publishers v Harriet Nantaum and Rose Nalunga CAD/ARB No.11 of 63 2008, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 5. Diamond Trust Bank Uganda Ltd v Semakula Joseph Herman & Anor OS No.1 of 40 2019, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 6. Real Marketing Limited v DFCU Bank HCCS No.858 of 2015 48 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 7. Namukasa Sarah Nsamba v Letshego Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 69 No. 590 Of 2018) [2019] UGCOMMC 227, Hon. Justice Richard Wejuli Wabwire 8. Kamagero Eria Isabirye v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd Misc. App. No. 688 of 2018 79 Hon. Justice Richard Wejuli Wabwire 9. National Security Fund v Alcon International Limited Misc. App. No. 940 of 2018 80 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 10. Robert Byaruhanga v Herbert A. Kanyeihamba Misc. App. No. 465 of 2017 74 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 11. Wilson Kagggwa v Ceaser Ndyowayesu HCCS No. 728 of 2016 48 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 12. Sam Akankatswa v United Bank of Africa Miscellaneous Application 40 of 2019 73 Hon. Richard Wejuli Wabwire 13. Shakil Pathan Ismail v DFCU Bank Ltd Civil Suit No. 236 of 2017 78 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 14. Uganda National Roads Authority v Dott Services and Another Misc. Application No. 53 343 of 2019, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 15. Trust Ventures Limited v Power foam (U) Ltd Civil Suit No. 669 of 2017 74 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 16. Tom Olal v Steel and Tube Industries HCCS No. 07 of 2016 55 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 17. Serumagga Ishaq v Goldmine Finance Ltd Misc. App. No. 719 of 2018 71 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 18. Kiboko Enterprises Limited v Phillips East Africa Limited High Court Civil Suit No. 53 601 of 2016, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 19. Leaf Tobacco and Commodities Uganda Limited v Commissioner of Customs, Uganda 77 Revenue Authority and Another High Court Civil Suit No. 218 of 2012 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 20. Gold Star Insurance Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2016 81 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 21. KCB Bank Uganda Limited v Kalema Deus Misc. App. No. 704 of 2018 82 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 22. Mangeni Amos v Okot Bernard High Court Civil Suit No. 458 of 2016 64
55 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 23. Wissam K Fawaz v Bharti Airtel Limited Civil Suit No. 1028 of 2017 79 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 24. Salini Construttori Spa v the AG and UNRA Civil Suit No. 979 of 2016 82 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 25. Sudhir Ruparelia v Crane Bank Limited in Receivership Miscellaneous Application 64 No. 320 of 2019, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 26. Target Well Control Uganda Limited v Commissioner General, URA High Court Civil 75 Suit N0. 751 of 2015, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 27. Salini Construttori v Jubilee Insurance Company of Uganda Limited Civil Suit No. 76 109 of 2016, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 28. Ms Fang Min v Uganda Hui Neng Mining Limited and 5 others High Court Civil Suit 85 No. 318 of 2016, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 29. Kyamuhanga Tea Co. Limited v Daks Couriers Limited (Civil Suit No. 862 OF 2017) 75 [2019] UGCOMMC 19, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 30. Coil Limited v Attorney General High Court Civil Suit No. 581 of 2014 76 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 31. Coil Limited v Attorney General HCCS 581 of 2014 80 Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 32. Citibank Uganda Limited v Uganda Fish Parkers Ltd and 6 Others High Court Civil 83 Suit No. 254 of 2009, Hon. Justice David Wangutusi 33. Stephen Stuyvesant Wobweni & another v Hon. Nandala Mafabi & another (Civil 67 Suit No.862 Of 2017) [2019] UGHCLD 50; Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 34. Sulaiman Kiggundu v Iga Francis High Court Misc. App. 1345 of 2018 74 Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 35. Okee Benjamin & 2 others v Otim Eronayo (Civil Appeal No. 0041 of 2015) [2019] 95 UGHCLD 2; Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 36. Mbulamuko Moses v Ochwo Robert (Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2015) [2019] 50 UGHCLD; Hon. Justice Michael Elubu 37. Omona Denish v Amito Ludia (Civil Appeal No.5 of 2015) [2019] UGHCLD 3 95 Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 38. Tayebwa Geoffrey & another v Kagimu Ngudde Mustafa (High Court Civil Suit No. 85 118 OF 2012) [2019] UGHCLD 5; Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 39. Daniel Kayizzi v Prince Muhammed Kayondo (Miscellanous Application No. 0387 78 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCLD 64; Hon. Justice Godfrey Namundi 40. Transroad Uganda Limited v Commissioner Land Registration Civil Suit No.621 of 77 2017) [2019] UGHCLD 6; Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 41. Abdul Nasser v Yesero Mugenyi & Anor (Misc. Application No.643 of 2019) [2019] 61 UGHCLD 59; Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 42. TSMP (U) Limited v The Registrar of Titles & another (Miscellaneous Application No. 60 184 of 2017) [2019] UGHCCD 107; Hon. Lady Justice Eva Luswaata 43. Walusimbi Samuel v Ambrose Nasasira & another (Misc. Application No. 22 of 74 2018) [2019] UGHCLD 46; Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 44. Kitinda Daphine & anor v Commissioner Land Registration (Misc. Cause No. 41 of 80 2019) [2019] UGHCLD 47; Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 45. Ibrahim Bamuleseyo & others v Oscar Ariisa (Civil Appeal No. 071 of 2016) [2019] 59 UGHCLD 65; Hon. Justice Godfrey Namundi
56 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
46. Ainomugisha Doreen v Saava Micheal D Kyazze (Civil Suit No.839 Of 2017) [2019] 56 UGHCLD 20 Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa 47. Uganda V Nalubega Sansa Mwajuma & Another (Anti-Corruption CN 0005 of 80 2018) [2019] UGHCACD 2; Hon. Justice Lawrence Gidudu 48. Uganda Vs Nalubega Mwanjuma & Anor (HCT – 00 – AC – CN – 0005 OF 2018) 80 [2019] UGHCACD 1; Hon. Justice Lawrence Gidudu 49. Uganda Vs Tumukunde & Anor (HCT – 00 – AC – CN – 0023 – 2018) [2019] 88 UGHCACD 3; Hon. Justice Lawrence Gidudu 50. Uganda Vs Nabunya (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 2 OF 2018) [2019] 80 UGHCACD 4; Hon. Justice Lawrence Gidudu 51. Isabirye v Uganda (CRIMINAL REVISION CAUSE NO. 03 OF 2018.) [2019] 75 UGHCCRD 1; Hon. Justice Eva K. Luswata 52. Uganda Vs Kayondo (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 0477 OF 2015) [2019] UGHCCRD 85 2; Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 53. Uganda Vs Rusoke (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 0062 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 3 88 Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 54. Mugisha Vs Uganda (HCT – 01 – CR – CM – NO – 050 OF 2018) [2019] 70 UGHCCRD 19; Hon. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene 55. Uganda Vs Mwesigwa & 3 Ors (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 1348 OF 2016) [2019] 90 UGHCCRD 4; Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 56. Uganda Vs Nakoupuet (CRIMINAL CASE No. 109 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 14 88 Hon. Mr. Justice Batema 57. Uganda Vs Kiyingo (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 0456 OF 2015) [2019] UGHCCRD 95 5; Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 58. Uganda Vs Asea (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 1234 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 6 95 Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 59. Uganda Vs Gidongo (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 0424 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 90 11 Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 60. Uganda Vs Kisembo (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 0203 OF 2014) [2019] UGHCCRD 95 7; Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 61. Uganda Vs Otim alias Opolot & 2 Ors (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 01421 OF 2016) 95 [2019] UGHCCRD 8 (8 February 2019); Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 62. Uganda v Wakumire (CRIMINAL CASE NO. 277 OF 2013) [2019] UGHCCRD 200 88 Lady Justice Flavia Senoga Anglin 63. Uganda v Kizza Manira (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.159 OF 2017) [2019] 80 UGHCCRD 54; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 64. Nantume Vs Uganda (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 130 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 9 70 Hon. Justice W. Kwesiga 65. Natukwatsa Vs Uganda (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 39 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 65 10; Hon. Justice W. Kwesiga 66. Uganda v Okiror Hazara & Others (CRIMINAL CASE NO. 273 OF 2013) [2019] 88 UGHCCRD 203; Lady Justice Flavia Senoga Anglin 67. Uganda v Akaka (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2015) [2019] UGHCCRD 12 90 Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 68. Uganda v Okech & Anor (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2015) [2019] UGHCCRD 13 90 Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 69. Uganda v Wasswa Charlse (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO 006 OF 2017) [2019] 85 UGHCCRD 64; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma
57 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
70. Uganda v Besigye Jamar & Anor (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 048 OF 2017) 90 [2019] UGHCCRD 45; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 71. Uganda v Kivanvali Jamalu (CRIMINAL SESSION NO. 008 OF 2017) [2019] 75 UGHCCRD 47; Hon.Justice Emmanuel Baguma 72. Uganda v Kakooza Mathias (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO 140 OF 2016) [2019] 88 UGHCCRD 56; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 73. Uganda v Kakooza Ronald (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 33 OF 2017) 88 [2019]UGHCCRD 48; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 74. Uganda v Mabike Athanasious (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 065 OF 2017) 90 [2019] UGHCCRD 51; Hon.Justice Emmanuel Baguma 75. Uganda Vs Byansi (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 280 OF 2014) [2019] 80 UGHCCRD 16; Hon. Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 76. Uganda Vs Buyinza (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 0139 OF 2013) 81 [2019]UGHCCRD 31; Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 77. Uganda Vs Kadago (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 443 OF 2015) 80 [2019]UGHCCRD 25; Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 78. Uganda Vs Nabanji (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 262 OF 2014) 86 [2019]UGHCCRD 32; Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 79. Uganda Vs Waiswa (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 253 OF 2014) 88 [2019]UGHCCRD 33; Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 80. Uganda v Nakabuye Yudaya (CRIMINAL SESSION NO. 194 OF 2016) [2019] 90 UGHCCRD 59; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 81. Uganda v Ssekitoleko & 2 Ors (CRIMINAL SESSION NO.18 OF 2018) [2019] 90 UGHCCRD 62; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 82. Uganda Vs Mugisha & 4 Ors (HCT – 01 – CR – CS – 126 OF 2015) [2019] 88 UGHCCRD 14 83. Ntale Vs Uganda (CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2018) 90 [2019]UGHCCRD 24; Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 84. Lugomba & 2 Ors Vs Uganda (CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 025 OF 2018) 75 [2019]UGHCCRD 23; Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 85. Twedede & Anor Vs Uganda (CONSOLIDATED CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 80 APPLICATION NO. 0008 AND 0009 OF 2018) [2019]UGHCCRD 22 Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata 86. Uganda Vs Mazinga (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 0094 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 70 17; Hon. Justice Mr Wilson Masalu Musene 87. Uganda Vs Monday (HCT – 01 – CR- CS – 0022 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 18 60 Hon. Justice Mr Wilson Masalu Musene 88. Uganda Vs Kusemererwa & 2 Ors (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 0065/2015) [2019] 70 UGHCCRD 16; Hon. Justice Mr Wilson Masalu Musene 89. Uganda Vs Gwafa & 2 Ors (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 31 – 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 70 15; Hon. Justice Mr Wilson Masalu Musene 90. Uganda Vs Tumwine & 2 Ors (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 61 – 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 70 20; Hon. Justice Mr Wilson Masalu Musene 91. Uganda Vs Twikirize & Anor (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 0153/2016) [2019] 65 UGHCCRD 21; Hon. Justice Mr Wilson Masalu Musene 92. Uganda Vs Angura (HCT – 00 – CR – SC – 1115 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 38 80 Hon. Justice Kwesiga
58 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
93. Uganda Vs Semamba (HCT – 00 – CR – SC – 1327 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 88 34; Hon. Justice Kwesiga 94. Uganda Vs Kakande Alias Ojara (CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 273 OF 2015) 90 [2019] UGHCCRD 30; Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru 95. Uganda v Misavu & Anor (CRIMINAL SESSION NO.18 OF 2018) [2019] 90 UGHCCRD 57; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 96. Uganda v Mutabazi Aron (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 118 OF 2017) [2019] 88 UGHCCRD 58; Hon.Justice. Emmanuel Baguma 97. Uganda v Ndifuna Constantine (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 68/2018) [2019] 70 UGHCCRD 60; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 98. Uganda v Ssebunya Hamuza (CRIMINAL SESSION NO. 0069 OF 2018) [2019] 70 UGHCCRD 61; Hon. Mr. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 99. Uganda Vs Ssonko (CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. NO. 12 OF 2019) [2019] 88 UGHCCRD 42; Lady Justice Margaret Mutonyi 100. Rtd Major General Matayo .B Kyaligonza Vs Uganda (HCT-14-CR-CV-0002-2019) 90 [2019] UGHCCRD 41; Lady Justice Margaret Mutonyi 101. Kiggwa & 5 ors Vs Uganda (REVISION CAUSE NO. 005 OF 2018) [2019] 75 UGHCCRD 40; Hon. Justice Kwesiga 102. Dr. Stella Nyanzi v Uganda (CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 024 OF 2019) [2019] 96 UGHCCRD 39; Hon. Lady Justice Jane Frances Abodo 103. Uganda v Obong Tom (CRIMINAL CASE NO. 124 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCRD 90 202; Lady Justice Flavia Senoga Anglin 104. Uganda v Nsubuga Ben (CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 93 201; Lady Justice Flavia Senoga Anglin 105. Uganda Vs Mugisha (HCT – 00 – CR – SC – 0007 – 2017) [2019]UGHCCRD 37 90 Ho. Justice Kwesiga 106. Uganda Vs Kasule (HCT – 00 – CR – SC – 0168 – 2019) [2019]UGHCCRD 36 70 Hon. Justice Kwesiga 107. Uganda v Ssonko Jimmy (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 119 OF 2017) [2019] 80 UGHCCRD 63; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma 108. Uganda V Kiggundu Muzafalu (CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 89 OF 2017) 90 [2019] UGHCCRD 49; Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma
Comments from the Review Team 1) A total of 108 copies of judgments were reviewed but for purposes of the Scorecard we focused on substantive judgments and not rulings. 2) Significantly, the speed with which decisions are handled appears to have been improved although a lot more is still left to be done. 3) In some notable decisions, the High Court played its role as the first court of record commendably. For this reason the following decisions deserve special mention.
Irumba v Asiimwe & 5 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2019) The Applicant filed this application to hold the Respondents in contempt of court for wilfully disobeying a court stopping them from evicting the Applicant from the suit premises. The Order was made by Justice Albert Rugadya Atooki on 16th January 2019, in the knowledge that the Applicant was still in possession of the suit property. The record, however, shows that the Applicant was evicted from the suit premises on 19th December 2018 and a return of execution of the court order was
59 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019 filed in court the same day. Court held that the irrefutable conclusion was that by the time the Applicant appeared and argued his application for contempt of court before Justice Rugadya, on the 16th of January 2019, he misled the Judge that he was in the suit property, whereas not. Justice Gadenya stated: “The Respondents cannot therefore, be cited for contempt of court for violating a court order that was obtained by the Applicant after misleading or not presenting the correct facts in court. Even if the order of Justice Rugadya, was perfect, the Applicant cannot establish a cause of action for contempt of court on an unserved court order. The Applicant never filed affidavits of service to verify and confirm that he served the Respondents. In contempt of court proceedings, the Respondents can only be held liable only when the Applicants establish that the Respondents had knowledge of the court order and wilfully disobeyed it.”
Balyebuga v Nyangoma (Civil Revision No. 3 of 2017) The magistrate closed a divorce matter under section 160 of the Magistrates Courts Act following a mediation period but subsequently reopened the matter permanently annulling the marriage of the parties. Section 160 of the Magistrates Courts Act provides: ln criminal cases, a Magistrate's Court may promote reconciliation, and encourage and facilitate the settlement in an amicable way, a proceedings for assault, or for any other offence of a personal or private nature, not amounting to a felony and not aggravated in degree, in terms of payment of compensation or other terms approved by the court, and may, there upon order the proceedings to be stayed. Justice Gadenya held that the trial magistrate had misapplied the law stating: “Clearly, Section 160 of Magistrate's Court Act is concerned with criminal Cases and not applicable to Civil Cases or indeed, the divorce petition which the trial Magistrate tried to resolve under the section. The decision by the trial Magistrate to close the Divorce Petition was therefore irregular. Secondly, I observed from the record that the trial Magistrate after re-opening the Petition, never addressed the main issue of the petition. The trial Magistrate instead spent time attending to maintenance issues of the children instead of first establishing whether the petitioner had satisfied the grounds for divorce. Furthermore, the trial Magistrate did not follow the law on handling divorce petition. If indeed, the trial Magistrate had found that the Petitioner had proved the grounds for divorce, he should have first issued a decree nisi and then, thereafter, made the decree absolute in accordance with Section 8 (I) and 3 7 ( 1) of the Divorce Act.”
Citibank Uganda Limited v Uganda Fish Parkers Ltd and 6 Others High Court Civil Suit No. 254 of 2009 The Plaintiff extended credit facilities to the defendant company comprised of a term loan, an overdraft, post-shipment and pre-shipment facilities. These facilities were guaranteed by the other defendants. One of the terms in the facilities was that in the occurrence of any event which in the opinion of the Plaintiff might have a material adverse effect on the defendant company’s business or their ability to comply with any their obligations, then that would amount to an event of default entitling the Plaintiff to terminate the facilities and demand full payment. In May 2009, the Managing Director of the defendant company died after which the company struggled to meet their repayment obligations to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff formed the opinion that the death of the Managing Director constituted a “material adverse effect” event for which the facilities were terminated. On 8th June the Plaintiff issued a formal demand to the company for the repayment of the outstanding amounts on the facilities. The Plaintiff also issued written demands to the guarantors on 18th June 2009 to repay the outstanding guaranteed amounts. Contending that the defendants had failed to honor the formal demands, the Plaintiff brought this suit in which they seek the recovery of US$ 3,706,895.00, Ugx 7,003,733,847/= and interest on these amounts. The defendants
60 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019 argued that the facilities had been advanced with no proper authorization of the directors of the company and that the facilities are also unenforceable because they were not advanced for the proper purpose of the company. They further contended that the facilities had been vitiated by fraud perpetrated by an employee of the Plaintiff and the company’s deceased Managing Director. Justice Wangutusi accepted the Plaintiff’s arguments and stated as follows:
“The doctrine that attributes to the company the will and mind of the natural persons or persons who manage and control its actions was stated by Viscount Haldane LC in Lennards Carrying Co v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd… Management and control however are not things to be considered generally. It is therefore necessary to identify the natural person or persons having management and control in relation to the act in point… It is not in doubt that Riyaz Kurji was the Managing Director of the company involved in its day to day administration. The applications for draw downs were made by him or in his absence, by the 7th Defendant, Arzina Kurji. These two were the ones responsible for the administration and financial management. They wrote and submitted purchase orders, sought draw downs and received payment through the company account, all in the names of the 1st Defendant. They were the mind of the 1st Defendant and all that was done they did in their capacity as its directors. If there is any claim that the 1st Defendant would have, these two directors would not be exempt. It is therefore legally unjust to absolve the 1st Defendant company of liability of money that went through its accounts, operated by its own directors. It is also therefore my finding that the 1st Defendant, notwithstanding the fraudulent behavior of its managers is liable to the Plaintiff as recipient of the facilities agreed upon by the two parties.
Shakil Pathan v DFCU Bank Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 236 OF 2017) [2019] UGCOMMC 1 Shakil Pathan sought the recovery of UGX. 62,000,000/= blocked/deducted from his salary account. He was an employee of Crane Bank Limited earning a monthly salary of USD 2200. Crane Bank Limited unlawfully blocked his account and thereafter made multiple deductions totalling to UGX. 62,000,000/= which sum has never been remitted to him. Bank of Uganda in exercise of its powers as the Central Bank under the Financial Institutions Act No. 2 of 2004 took over the management of Crane Bank Limited on the basis that it was significantly undercapitalized as defined by law and placed it under receivership. By way of a purchase of assets and assumption of liabilities agreement the Defendant bank as buyer took over some of the assets and liabilities of Crane Bank Limited (In Receivership) from the Receiver Bank of Uganda. The Defendant was assigned Crane Bank Limited’s rights and liabilities under all its existing employment contracts subject to certain exclusion clauses. Shakil was therefore one of the employees of Crane Bank Limited whose employment contract was assigned to the Defendant. He claimed that despite the termination of his employment no settlement regarding the deductions on his salary account has been made thus he filed this suit seeking recovery of the same. The defendant bank contends that she is not a successor in title to Crane Bank Limited but only acquired some of its assets and liabilities in January 2017. That the liabilities of Crane Bank Limited were not known to the Defendant and the Statutory Receiver of Crane Bank Limited as at 25th January 2017. The court noted that Shakil was not privy to the agreement between the defendant bank and Bank of Uganda whereby Bank of Uganda would indemnify the defendant bank. Legally the defendant bank assumed the position of Crane Bank when she took over the Bank. Court found support for this position in Section 28(2) of the Employment Act. In holding as such Justice Wangutusi stated:
“The relationship between the Plaintiff and Crane Bank simply shifted to the Defendant by operation of the law. This position would however have been changed if the Plaintiff had been privy to the Purchase of Assets and Assumption of Liabilities Agreement… It follows that if there
61 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019 arose any dispute, the contracts to fall back to would be those very ones. It also follows that the Defendant would be the Employer. The sum total is that the Plaintiff rightly sued the Defendant.”
Omona v Amito (Civil Appeal No.5 of 2015) [2019] UGHCLD 3 The appellant sought a declaration that he is the rightful owner of land measuring approximately one acre located at, Kal A2 sub ward, Koch-Goma sub-county, Nwoya District. His case was that he inherited the land from his late father following his death in 1987. He lived on the land peacefully until the insurgency when the respondent, who was a neighbour to the South of the land, took refuge on the land. When a Secondary School was constructed on the part the respondent used to occupy, she in turn encroached onto the appellant's land. The respondent has since then refused to vacate the appellant's land. The respondent claimed that the land belonged to her late husband who in turn inherited it from his parents. She claimed to have lived on the land since the 1950s when she married her late husband. On basis of those facts, she counterclaimed for a declaration that she is the rightful owner of the land. In finding for the respondent, Justice Mubiru stated as follows:
“The respondent's version that her husband lived on the land before he married her, she came to live on the land when he married her, that both lived together thereon until his death and that she still lives on the land, was verified at the visit to the locus in quo by the presence of a banana plantation belonging to the respondent. There was nothing to show that the appellant nor his father Ocaya Rufino or Omar before his alleged migration to Minakulu, ever lived on or undertook any activities on the land. The evidence as a whole shows a significant imbalance that tilts the scale in favour of the respondent and therefore the trial court came to the correct conclusion.”
Uganda v Mwesigwa & 3 Others (CRIMINAL SESSION No. 1348 OF 2016) [2019] The four accused in this case are jointly indicted with one count of Murder contrary to section 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. Each of the four accused pleaded not guilty to the indictment. In a bid to prove the indictment against the four accused, the prosecution adduced the post mortem report and the medical examination report both of which were admitted at the preliminary hearing, called two additional witnesses and closed its case. Justice Mubiru then set out to determine whether a prima facie case had been set out. He elaborated on the principles of determining a prima facie case, stating:
“A prima facie case is established when the evidence adduced is such that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind on the law and evidence, would convict the accused person if no evidence or explanation was set up by the defence… The evidence adduced at this stage, should be sufficient to require the accused to offer an explanation, lest they run the risk of being convicted. Malice aforethought is a mental element that is difficult to prove by direct evidence. Courts usually consider weapon used (in this case none was recovered) and the manner it was applied (it is not clear whether any of the injuries were fatal) and the part of the body of the victim that was targeted (internal injuries to the right lung, the left and right ventricles and the brain). The ferocity can be determined from the impact (suspected toxic substance in the body system). In the circumstances, malice aforethought could only be inferred if there was evidence of an unlawful cause of death. Since the evidence led so far is incapable of ruling out death by toxic substance rather than physical assault, no reasonable tribunal could in the circumstances conclude that Mugerwa Muhaisini alias Muwa’s death was caused with malice aforethought if the accused chose to remain silent ion their defence. For that reason, the prosecution has failed to lead credible evidence capable of supporting such a finding.” Recommendations
62 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
1) Increasing the number of High Court judges to manage the backlog. 2) Encouraging judges to submit their judgments on ULII for them to be uploaded. 3) Considering anonymising certain witnesses and victims in the published versions of sensitive cases such as rape, defilement and in the case of child witnesses.
Award for Best Performing Justice of the High Court In terms of the number and quality of judgments, the deserving award is to Hon Justice Stephen Mubiru. Hon Justice Mubiru’s judgments are properly articulated in terms of law and precedent and several of these judgments are of great jurisprudential value and reportable. In particular justice Mubiru is commended for his scholarly approach to judgments and the expeditious manner with which he handles the judgments.
3.6 Civil Society Organizations’ Viewpoints on the Performance of Judiciary
The assessment also engaged key relevant members of the public and civil society to solicit their views on the state of the Judicial officials and system, performance, challenges and suggestions for improving the functionality of the Judicial system. Views were solicited through one on one and group interviews. Below are the views highlighted;
Attitude of Judicial Staff Members of the civil society reported that most of the Judicial staff respond to the needs of those that want their services. A few however reported that some judicial staff are not empathetic at all and are hard to access unless one has money to get their attention. It was further reported that some Judicial Officials are often unavailable especially those handling political cases.
Affordability of Services Most members of the civil society felt that the court fees are fairly okay but would be more inclusive if accessing Court services was completely free. It was noted that accessing lawyers is a barrier since most people cannot afford them. Long distances to Courts for some members of the public makes it expensive for them since they have to spend on transport. Some of the respondents noted that whereas Court fees are reasonable, bribes which are usually demanded through or by Clerks in the name of Judicial staff makes court services expensive for most people.
Fairness in the Administration of Justice Members of the civil society largely perceived Judicial Officials to be fair in administration of Justice. However, some felt that there is lack of independence and fairness most times for political cases.
Commitment to Job Performance Some members of the civil society assessed Judicial officials as always available for work and have do their best to reduce on the case backlog despite it being overwhelming. On the other hand, most members of the civil society felt that there is low commitment of Judicial officials especially at the lower levels. It was reported that there is a lot of delays in convening Court hearings (starting late), absenteeism without explanation and unnecessary case adjournments. It was also reported that some Judicial officials are only responsive if offered money.
Timeliness in Handling and Completion of Cases
63 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Related to the above, most members felt that cases take too long to be concluded. Whereas many think it could be attributed to too much backlog and understaffing, many felt that cases are adjourned unnecessarily, without giving reasons in some instances.
Transparency of the Judicial Staff Whereas some members of the civil society found Judicial officials professional at their work, other members described them as corrupt lacking transparency and integrity. As noted earlier, it was reported that there is a lot of soliciting for bribes through clerks. This was attributed to low pay and poor working conditions.
Accessibility of Courts Many respondents noted that this depends on the distance a court user has to travel to get to the Court in their area. It was felt that accessibility to Courts in rural areas is difficult. It was discussed that Courts are mostly accessible to people in urban areas near towns where the Courts are located leaving some people with high transport costs to meet. Some have to walk long distances to get to Courts.
Major Challenges Affecting Reputation of the Judicial Staff and System in Uganda and possible recommendations
Challenges Recommendations • The Judicairy is understaffed and this has • There is need for recruitment of more resulted to increased case backlog and Judicial staff to enhance efficiency and eventually delay in the administration of effectiveness of the Judicairy. Justice. • Suntions to both the lawyers and the • Unnecessary adjournments by both the Judiciary need to be set for unnecessary lawyers and judicial officer. adjounments. The will promote speedy • Corruption by court users hearing of cases. • Influence of the Executive which undermines • Settling through mediation to reduce case Judicial independence. backlog • Poor remuneration of staff in the Judiciary • There is need to strengthen the • Lack of equipment such as computers enforcement of the whistle blowers Act so • Inadequate supervision and monitoring of as to encourage identification and performance eventual prosecution of corrupt individuals. • Stengthen the implementation and enforcement of the Administration of the Judiciary Act • Sensitization of the public to improve awareness of court processes in the community • Increased regular supervision and inspection to monitor performance of the Judiciary • Sensitization of Judicial staff on the impact of corruption • Continuous training and sensitization of the judiciary staff on their roles and mandate
64 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
• Investigate cases of corruption and hold corrupt individuals accountable.
3.7 Court Leadership and Management
The assessment also engaged clerks and registrars to solicit their views on the state of leadership, management, processes, challenges and suggestions for improving the functionality of Courts. Views were solicited through one on one interviews. Below are the views highlighted;
Courts Assessed:
Court Name Region Court Type Mengo Head Quarters CM Nakawa Head Quarters CM Family Division Head Quarters HC Criminal Division Head Quarters HC Land Division Head Quarters HC Anti-Corruption Court Head Quarters HC Commercial Division Head Quarters HC Fort Portal CM Fort Portal CM Fort Portal HC Fort Portal HC Jinja HC Jinja HC Mukono CM Mukono CM Mukono HC Mukono HC Mbarara HC Mbarara HC Mbarara CM Mbarara CM Mbale HC Mbale HC Mbale CM Mbale CM Masaka CM Masaka CM Gulu CM Gulu CM Gulu HC Gulu HC
Staffing in Registrar’s Office All the Courts that were assessed reported to always having staff in the registrar’s office when ever needed by the public. Most Courts (73%) assessed, reported to have enough staff in the registrar’s office. The courts that reported inadequate court staff included ACC, Gulu HC, Mbale HC, Masaka CM, Mukono CM and Family Division. Most courts (79%) assessed reported to have a transcriber attached. The Courts that reported no transcriber attached included Mbarara CM, Mengo and Masaka CM.
Records Management Ease of locating files when needed by Court uses was moderate. A notable proportion (35%) of Courts reported that its difficult to locate files when needed. The Courts included Mukono (HC and CM), Mbarara CM, Fort portal (HC and CM), Nakawa CM, Mbale HC and Jinja HC. Similar to locating files, ease of accessing files by court users was also moderate. 40% of the Courts assessed
65 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019 reported that its not easy for court users to access files when they need them. Courts that reported difficulties for court users to easily access files included Jinja HC, Mbarara and Kabarole Courts. Most courts (81%) assessed reported able to handle multiple requests from court users. The courts that reported challenges in responding to multiple requests included Gulu HC, Masaka CM, Commercial, Jinja HC and Family Division.
Access to information by Court users Most courts (83%) assessed reported to have an information desk at the premises. The courts that reported a lack of such desk included Fort portal, Mukono, Nakawa and Criminal Courts. Most courts (87%) assessed reported to have displayed guidelines for court users and in a commonly used language. The Courts that reported a lack of displayed guidelines included Fort portal CM, Jinja HC, Mbarara, Nakawa and Criminal Courts.
Facilitation of Courts Few courts (51%) assessed reported to have legal materials stocked at the court. The Courts that reported significant gaps included Masaka CM, Mukono, Nakawa, Mengo, Fort portal CM, Jinja HC, Jinja MC and Mbale HC. Very few courts were found without a computer, printer, photo copier and voice recorder. Fort portal HC and Masaka CM were found the least equipped. Mbarara CM, Mengo, Nakawa and Gulu Courts were found with gaps as well.
66 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Table: xxx
Indicator Overall Score Commendable Low Poor Staffing in Registrar’s office Staff always available 100% ALL Staff enough 73% Mengo, Nakawa, Criminal, Land, Commercial, Family ACC, Fort Portal, Jinja HC, Mukono HC, Mbarara, Gulu HC, Mbale Mbale CM, Gulu CM HC, Masaka, Mukono CM Transcriber available 79% Nakawa, Family, Criminal, Land, ACC, Mbarara CM, Commercial, Fort Portal, Jinja HC, Mukono, Mengo, Masaka Mbarara HC, Mbale, Gulu CM Records Management Files easy to find 65% Mengo, Family, Criminal, Land, ACC, Nakawa, Mbale HC, Mukono, Mbarara Commercial, Mbarara HC, Mbale CM, Masaka Jinja HC CM, Fort Portal CM, Gulu Files easy to access 60% Mengo, Nakawa, Family, Criminal, Land, ACC, Jinja HC, Mbarara, Commercial, Mukono, Mbale, Masaka CM, Gulu Fort Portal Able to handle multiple 81% Mengo, Nakawa, Criminal, Land, ACC, Fort Commercial, Family, Gulu HC, Masaka requests Portal, Mukono, Mbarara, Mbale, Gulu CM Jinja HC CM Access to information by Court users Information desk available 83% Mengo, Family, Land, ACC, Commercial, Fort portal HC, Mukono, Nakawa Fort Portal CM, Jinja HC, Mukono, Mbarara, Criminal Mbale. Masaka CM, Gulu Guidelines are displayed 87% Mengo, Family, Criminal, Land, ACC, Fort portal CM, Commercial, Fort Portal HC, Mukono, Jinja HC, Mbarara Mbarara HC, Mbale, Masaka CM, Gulu CM, Nakawa Guidelines in a common 78% Mengo, Family, Land, ACC, Commercial, Jinja HC, Mbarara, Fort Portal CM language for the public Fort Portal HC, Mukono, Mbale, Masaka CM, Nakawa, Criminal Gulu
67 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Table: xxx
Indicator Overall Score Commendable Low Poor Legal materials Well stocked with legal 51% Family, Criminal, Land, ACC, Commercial, Mengo, Fort Portal Fort Portal HC, materials and updated Mbarara, Mbale CM, Gulu CM, Jinja HC, Mbale Masaka CM, Mukono, HC Nakawa Availability of functional equipment Computer 91% Mengo, Nakawa, Family, Criminal, Mbarara CM Fort Portal HC Land, ACC, Commercial, Fort Portal CM, Jinja HC, Mukono, Mbarara HC, Mbale, Masaka CM, Gulu Printer 88% Mengo, Nakawa, Family, Criminal, Fort Portal HC, Land, ACC, Commercial, Masaka CM Fort Portal CM, Jinja HC, Mukono, Mbarara, Mbale, Gulu Photo copier 71% Family, Criminal, Land, ACC, Fort Portal CM, Commercial, Fort Jinja HC, Mukono, Mbarara, Mbale, Gulu Portal HC, Mengo, Masaka CM, Nakawa Voice recorder 77% Nakawa, Family, Criminal, Land, ACC, Gulu Fort Portal HC, Commercial, Fort Portal CM, Jinja HC, Mengo, Masaka CM, Mukono, Mbarara, Mbale
68 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
3.8 Challenges and Recommendations: Judicial Officials views
The assessment also engaged Judges and Magistrates to solicit their views on the state of leadership, management, processes, challenges and suggestions for improving the functionality of the Judicial system. Views were solicited through one on one interviews. Below are the views highlighted;
Court and Location Challenges Recommendations Mengo • Poor remuneration • Increase funding • Inadequate equipment • Stock new equipment • Delayed funds • Timely payments Family Division • Backlog but reducing • Computerization of the filing • Under staffing system • Inadequate premises • Expansion of court facilities • Outdated Filing system • More staff especially Judges and registrars ACC • Limited facilities • Increase number of facilities • Ignorance of Litigants and users • Arrogant court users Criminal Division • Backlog but reducing significantly • Recruit more staff • No feedback mechanism from • Adopt use of technology court users • Improve communication with other • Limited Finances court users especially with lawyers, • Delayed cases resulting in prison officers dismissals • Allow Judiciary to control its • Poor or improper investigations budget • Loss of files by Police (DPP) • Increased funding • Embrace other methods such as plea bargaining • Capacity Building Masaka • High Backlog • Recruit more Judicial staff • No feedback mechanisms from • Capacity building of staff court users • Improve supervision especially at • Few staff amidst high workload lower levels • Poor facilitation especially • Improved Police investigation transport • Putting up courts at village level • Limited budget • Sensitization of court users on court processes Mbarara • Few Judicial staff • Recruit more Judicial officers • Limited funds • Increased fundings • Delayed release of operational • Timely release of funds funds Jinja • Backlog especially civil cases • Recruit more Judicial officers • Limited Staff • Extend free legal services to all • Attitude of court users • Improved funding and facilitation • Most magistrates work in more (tools and vehicles) than one station • Sensitization of the public
69 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Court and Location Challenges Recommendations • Delayedand inadequate funds • High workload • Unrepresented Litigants Fort Portal • High workload due to few staff • Recruit more Judicial officers • Inadequate facilities and tools of • Post judicial officers in areas work where they understand the • Poor remuneration language • Language barrier – have to rely • Increase funding on interpreters • Parliament should pass administration of Justice bill, 2018 ASAP Arua • Few staff covering a large • Recruit more Judicial staff geographical area • Provide consist supply of power to • Poor remuneration courts • Ignorant public about the law • Sensitization of the public • Lack of political will and • Consistent funding – not in commitment to fund the Judiciary installments • Biased transfer policy based on • Equal infrastructural benefits for favoritism and Nepotism upcountry stations • Lack of interpreters for some • Improved welfare benefits for languages especially from South Judicial officers Sudan • Some lawyers are lazy – never want cases to end Mbale • Limited funds and facilitation • Use of technology for information • Insecurity especially when management handling sensitive cases • Sensitization of public about court • Case backlogs of previous processes Magistrates • Inadequate staff Gulu • Limited funding • Cases from other districts should be • Under staffing amidst high handled from there eg Amuru, workload Nwoya, Kitgum, etc
70 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation
4.1 Conclusions The assessment is not without limitation. Though representative, the assessment does not cover all Courts in Uganda. Not all Judges and Magistrates are scored by both the Legal Professionals and Litigants. The overall scores presented in the report are computed only among Judicial Officials that are scored by both groups. Not all Judges and Magistrates are observed. The number of times observed also vary for each Judge and Magistrate. It should be highlighted that those observed only two or less times are dropped from analysis.
Higher Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores: The Supreme Court scored 72.8% categorized as good (70-79%). Court of Appeal scored 49.2% categorized as a low performance (below 50%).
High Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores: Overall, no High Court scored above 80% (very good or exceptional): Two (2) of the 13 courts assessed scored a good performance 70-79 assessment score. Six (6) High Courts scored fair (60-69%) and five (5) low (50-59%) – the lowest overall.
Magistrates’ Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores: Overall, no Magistrates’ Court scored very good or exceptional over 80%: Three (3) of the 10 Magistrates’ Courts assessed scored commendable assessment score between 70-79%. Four (4) Magistrate’s Courts scored a fair score (60-69%) and two (2) low (50-59%). One (1) CM Court had a score that can be considered poor (below 50%) – the lowest overall. Kabarole Chief Magistrate Court at 77.8% scored the highest. Nakawa and Arua Chief Magistrates’ Courts also scored a commendable performance score.
Observation Scores: Overall, Judicial Officials scored commendably on aspects relating to being ready and prepared, presiding over with efficiency and capacity as well as being non- discriminative. On the other hand, Judicial Officials scored significantly low on the aspect of explaining reasons for delay or convening Court late. This was mostly the case for Court of Appeal, Criminal and Commercial Division. They were also scored low on the aspect of assigning interpreters and making effort to describe the Court process to Court users.
4.2 Recommendations to address challenges o Increase staffing of the Judicial Officers. The Judicial Service Commission should be facilitated to carry out recruitment of more Judicial Officials and support staff. With the Administration of the Judiciary Act 2020 now in force, we hope this will be possible.
o Capacity building for Judicial Officers especially speicalised trainnings for officers of particular courts like the Anti-Corruption Court. This was also cited for cases related to metal health.
o Improve remuneration. The Government of Uganda should urgently address the issue of under funding to the judiciary.
o There is need to improve availability of basic facilities for court users during court sessions including Person with Disability.
71 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
o Close monitoring and evaluation of Judicial staff. This is recommended to improve attitude and commitment to work among Judicial Officers.
o There is a need to frequently transfer Clerks and other support staff to eliminate the cases of solicitation of bribes in the name of Judicial Officials.
o In terms of appointments and promotions, due care must be takento appoint judicial officers whose skill in a particular area would enhance of be beneficial to the particular line of appointment.
4.3 Recommendations on Quality of Judgments Supreme Court o The Supreme Court Justices should always strive to write individual judgments. Each Judge providing the reasons for judgment will always give clarity to the thoughts of a particular Judge. The main purpose of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues which leads to further development of the law in general.
o Being the precedent-setting Court, the Supreme Court should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid ambiguity. In some instances, the Court went a step further in expanding the law.
Court of Appeal o The Court of Appeal Justices should always strive to write individual judgments. Each Judge providing the reasons for judgment will always give clarity to the thoughts of a particular Judge. The main purpose of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues which leads to further development of the law in general.
o Being a precedent-setting Court to the High Court and Magistrates’ Courts, the Court of Appeal should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid any inconsistent application of the law. To that end, detailed well-reasoned judgments should be followed by a summary of the position taken by the Court. o The habit of reproducing pleadings in entirety ought to be abandoned unless this is particularly necessary. In some cases, irrelevant parts of the pleadings are reproduced extensively and yet these do not add any real value to the judgment.
Constitutional Courts o The number of justices available in the Court of Appeal should be increased to handle the backlog
High Courts o The number of High Court judges should be increased to manage the backlog. o The Judiciary should ensure that judgment are uploaded on ULI. o Consideration should be made for anonymising certain witnesses and victims in the published versions of sensitive cases such as rape and defilement and in the case of child witnesses.
72 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Annex 1: Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals
Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals Total Impartiality Certainty Professionalism Behavior and attitude Communication Fairness Litigants LP Total Litigants LP Total Litigants LP Total Litigants LP Total Litigants LP Total Litigants LP Total Litigants LP Total Total 64.8 64.4 64.6 18.9 20.1 19.5 2.8 3.8 3.3 6.5 6.7 6.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 30.3 28.5 29.4 Court & Location Supreme court 71.3 74.2 72.8 21.0 23.1 22.1 3.5 3.65 3.6 7.1 7.6 7.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.7 32.4 32.4 32.4 Court of appeal 47.9 50.4 49.2 14.3 15.9 15.1 2.4 2.25 2.3 5.1 5.2 5.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 21.3 22.2 21.8 Land Division 64.9 67.4 66.1 19.1 21 20.0 2.5 2.20 2.3 6.6 6.9 6.7 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.5 30.6 30.6 30.6 Commercial Division 73.6 69.3 71.4 22.5 21.9 22.2 3.6 3.30 3.4 7.5 7.3 7.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.5 33.0 30 31.5 Criminal Division 63.5 68.9 66.2 18.2 21.6 19.9 3.0 3.10 3.0 6.3 6.8 6.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.5 29.7 30.9 30.3 Family Division 66.5 69.0 67.7 19.4 20.7 20.0 3.0 3.30 3.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.5 30.9 31.2 31.1 Anti-Corruption Court 68.9 61.9 65.4 20.4 20.7 20.6 2.8 2.80 2.8 5.9 6.5 6.2 3.1 2.7 2.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 33.0 25.5 29.3 HC Masaka 57.2 56.9 57.1 16.8 18 17.4 2.0 2.05 2.0 6.3 5.6 6.0 2.3 2.5 2.4 3.1 3.0 3.0 26.7 25.8 26.3 HC Mbale 62.1 57.0 59.6 17.3 18.6 17.9 2.9 2.40 2.7 6.3 5.7 6.0 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.7 30.0 25.2 27.6 HC Arua 67.1 46.4 56.8 20.3 15.9 18.1 2.5 1.60 2.1 6.7 4.7 5.7 3.2 2.1 2.7 3.5 2.6 3.1 30.9 19.5 25.2 HC Mbarara 63.3 68.5 65.9 16.1 20.7 18.4 2.3 2.70 2.5 7.4 7.2 7.3 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.2 3.5 3.3 32.1 31.8 32.0 HC Gulu 49.7 53.7 51.7 13.2 15.3 14.3 2.2 2.30 2.2 4.7 6.3 5.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 24.9 24.9 24.9 HC Kabarole 77.7 73.8 75.8 23.3 23.1 23.2 3.2 3.00 3.1 7.8 7.7 7.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.9 3.9 36.0 32.7 34.4 HC Jinja 69.1 69.9 69.5 19.4 21.9 20.6 3.0 3.00 3.0 7.5 7.3 7.4 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.5 32.4 30.9 31.7 HC Mukono 57.3 53.7 55.5 15.2 18.9 17.0 2.2 1.75 2.0 5.7 6.0 5.8 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.4 3.0 3.2 28.5 22.2 25.4 Nakawa 71.7 72.8 72.3 22.2 22.8 22.5 3.2 3.20 3.2 7.3 7.4 7.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.8 31.8 32.1 32.0 Mengo 50.8 60.8 55.8 14.9 18.3 16.6 2.3 2.50 2.4 4.8 5.9 5.3 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.1 23.4 27.9 25.7 CM Masaka 71.3 62.1 66.7 21.8 18.9 20.3 2.9 2.50 2.7 6.5 6.1 6.3 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.9 3.2 3.5 33.3 28.5 30.9 CM Mbale 68.1 70.5 69.3 19.5 20.1 19.8 3.4 3.50 3.4 6.6 7.1 6.8 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.6 31.8 32.7 32.3 CM Arua 75.5 72.7 74.1 23.1 20.4 21.8 3.4 3.40 3.4 7.5 7.4 7.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.9 34.2 33.9 34.1 CM Mbarara 68.0 68.0 18.0 18.0 3.0 3.0 7.7 7.7 2.8 2.8 3.3 3.3 33.3 33.3 CM Kabarole 77.8 77.8 77.8 23.6 23.7 23.6 3.3 3.45 3.4 7.8 7.7 7.8 3.6 3.7 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 35.7 35.4 35.6 CM Jinja 62.4 58.5 60.4 18.9 19.8 19.4 2.7 2.25 2.5 5.7 5.9 5.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 3.2 3.4 3.3 29.4 24.9 27.2 CM Gulu 44.1 49.2 46.6 13.4 15 14.2 2.0 2.20 2.1 4.1 4.7 4.4 1.9 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.5 20.4 22.2 21.3 CM Mukono 55.4 57.6 56.5 15.6 18.9 17.3 2.2 2.65 2.4 5.5 6.5 6.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.2 3.0 3.1 26.4 24 25.2
73 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Annex 2: CSOs that Participated
No Name of Organization Location 1 Justice Centre Kabarole 2 Legal aid project of Uganda Law Society Kabarole 3 Rwenzori Human rights and peace building forum Kabarole 4 Uganda Christian Lawyers Fraternity Mukono 5 CARITAS Arua 6 Arua Diocese Arua 7 Women Rights Initiative Jinja 8 Christ Hear Ministries International Jinja 9 Justice Centre Jinja 10 Uganda Law Society Jinja 11 Justice for Children Mbale 12 FIDA Uganda Mbale 13 Human Rights Initiative Network Mbale 14 All Saints Church Mbarara 15 Legal Aid Project Mbarara 16 Grassroot Transformation Initiative Gulu 17 FIDA Uganda Gulu 18 St. Phillip Church Gulu 19 Christ Church Gulu 20 Platform for Labour Action Kampala 21 Foundation for Human Rights Initiative Kampala 22 NGO Forum Kampala 23 Law Development Centre Kampala 24 HURINET Kampala 25 FIDA Uganda Kampala 26 FES Kampala 27 Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum Kampala 28 Public Interest Law Clinic – Makerere University Kampala Kampala 29 Economic Policy Research Centre Kampala 30 ACCU Kampala 31 Nation Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU) Kampala
74 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Annex 3: List of Judges and Magistrates scored by Legal professionals and Litigants
Table 32: Justices for Supreme Court Name HON. JUSTICE NSHIMYE AUGUSTINE HON. JUSTICE MUGAMBA PAUL HON. JUSTICE KATUREEBE BART HON. LADY KISAAKYE ESTHER KITIMBO HON. JUSTICE MWANGUSYA ELDAD HON. JUSTICE OPIO RUBBY AWERI HON. LADY JUSTICE MWONDHA FAITH HON. LADY JUSTICE ARACH STELLA AMOKO HON. JUSTICE TUMWESIGYE JOTHAM HON. JUSTICE BUTEERA RICHARD
Table 33a: Justices for Court of Appeal Name HON. JUSTICE KASULE REMMY HON. JUSTICE MADRAMA CHRISTOPHER HON. LADY JUSTICE OBURA HELLEN HON. JUSTICE MUSOTA STEPHEN HON. JUSTICE KAKURU KENNETH HON. LADY JUSTICE MUSOKE ELIZABETH HON. JUSTICE OWINY-DOLLO ALFONSE HON. JUSTICE EGONDA NTENDE HON. LADY JUSTICE TUHAISE PERCY NIGHT
Table 34: Judges for High Courts
Name Court HOM. JUSTICE GADENYA PAUL Commercial HON. JUSTICE MASALU MUSENE HC Kabarole HON. LADY JUSTICE MUGENYI ANNE Commercial HON. JUSTICE WABWIRE WEJULI RICHARD Commercial HON. JUSTICE ELABU MICHAEL HC Jinja HON. LADY JUSTICE LUSWATA EVA HC Jinja HON. JUSTICE WANGUTUSI DAVID Commercial HON. JUSTICE MATOVU DAVID Family HON. LADY JUSTICE MUKWAYA OLIVE KAZAARWE Family HON. LADY JUSTICE ALIVIDZA JANE E Commercial HON. LADY JUSTICE KITARIISIBWA KETRAH KATUNGUKA Family HON. LADY NKONGE ALEXENDRA Land HON. JUSTICE KAWESA HENRY Land
75 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Name Court HON. JUSTCE KWESIGWA WILSON Criminal HON. JUSTICE GIDUDU LAWRENCE ACC HON. LADY JUSTICE SENOGA FLAVIA ANGLIN Criminal HON. JUSTICE NYANZI YASIN Criminal HON. LADY JUSTICE KAKOZA CORNELIA SABITI Land HON. LADY JUSTICE ABODO JANE FRANCES Criminal HON. LADY JUSTICE KAVUMA JOYCE HC Mbarara HON. JUSTICE ASIIMWE TADEO HC Mbale HON. JUSTICE KEITIRIMA JOHN EUDES Land HON. JUSTICE NAMUNDI GODFREY Family HON. LADY JUSTICE ZEIJA FLAVIAN HC Mbarara HON. LADY JUSTICE TIBULYA MARGRAET ACC HON. LADY JUSTICE NABISINDE WINFRED HC Masaka HON. JUSTICE OJOK ANTHONY HC Arua HON. LADY JUSTICE MUTONYI MARGARET HC Mukono HON. JUSTICE MUBIRU STEPHEN HC Gulu HON. LADY JUSTICE OKALANY SUZAN HC Mbale
Table 35: Magistrates
Name Court HW KEDI PAUL CM Arua HW ARINAITWE ELISHA CM Kabarole HW KAGGWA JOHN FRANCIS CM Kabarole HW ALUM AGNES CM Nakawa HW ODWORI POSSIANO CM Nakawa HW NABASSA RUTH CM Nakawa HW MAWANDA EREMYE JAMES CM Mbale HW ANGURA PHIONA CM Nakawa HW KAGOYA JACKLINE CM Nakawa HW KYOMUHANGI ANN HAPPY CM Jinja HW ZAKO DORCUS CM Mbale HW TWAKYIRE SAMUEL CM Mbarara HW NANTAWO AGNESS CM Mbale HW SSEJJEMBA DEO CM Masaka HW CHEMONGESI SATIYA CM Mbale HW EPOBO DANIEL CM Mbale HW MAGEZI AMON CM Jinja HW NAMAE IRENE CM Mengo HW HATANGA JULIET CM Mukono HW MUSHABE KARACHO ALEX CM Mengo HW KOBURUNGA PATIENCE CM Mukono
76 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Name Court HW MUYINDA TADEO CM Mukono HW NAMBAFU AGNES CM Jinja HW AGIYO HELLEN CM Jinja HW TUKUNDANE PATIENCE LORNA CM Mengo HW BARABE ROSEMARY CM Gulu HW NYAKANA ALLAN CM Mengo HW KINTU IMMORAN ISAAC CM Gulu HW LUBOWA DANIEL CM Arua HW DAWA FRANCIS WATENGA CM Gulu
Annex 4: List of Judges and Magistrates Observed
Table 36: Judges - Higher Courts Name Observations Court HON. LADY JUSTICE KISAAKYE ESTHER KITIMBO 3 Supreme HON. JUSTICE KASULE REMMY 4 COA HON. JUSTICE KATUREEBE BART 5 Supreme HON. JUSTICE MADRAMA CRISTOPHER 3 COA HON. JUSTICE OPIFENI A. GODFREY. 15 Supreme HON. JUSTICE OWINY-DOLLO ALFONSE 5 Supreme HON. JUSTICE MWANGUSYA ELDAD 4 Supreme
Table 37: Judges - High Courts
Name Observations Court HON. JUSTICE ELUBU MICHAEL 8 HC Jinja HON. LADY JUSTICE KITARIISIBWA KATENGUKA KETRA 9 Family HON. LADY JUSTICE LUSWATA EVA 8 HC Jinja HON. LADY JUSTICE MUKWAYA OLIVE KAZAARWE 11 Family HON. JUSTICE MUBIRU STEVEN 11 HC Gulu HON. JUSTICE NAMUNDI GODFREY 9 Family HON. JUSTICE MATOVU DAVID 11 Family HON. LADY JUSTICE SENOGA ANGLIN FLAVIA 3 Criminal HON. LADY JUSTICE ZEIJA FLAVIAN 5 HC Mbarara HON. LADY JUSTICE KAVUMA JOYCE 7 HC Mbarara HON. LADY JUSTICE MUTONYI MARGRET 9 HC Mukono HON. LADY JUSTICE GIDUDU LAWERENCE 21 ACC HON. LADY JUSTICE ABODO JANE FRANCES 5 Criminal HON. LADY NABISINDE WINIFRED 17 HC Masaka HON. JUSTICE GADENYA PAUL 5 Commercial HON. JUSTICE NYANZI YASIN 4 Criminal HON. LADY JUSTICE SSALI HARRIET 3 HC Mukono HON. LADY JUSTICE KAKOOZA CORNELIA 8 Land
77 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Name Observations Court HON. JUSTICE OJOK OYUKO ANTHONY 9 HC Arua HON. LADY JUSTICE TIBULYA MARGRAET 19 ACC HON. JUSTICE WANGUTUSI DAVID 7 Commercial HON. JUSTICE WABWIRE WEJUBA RICHARD 9 Commercial HON. JSUSTICE KAWEESA HENRY 7 Land HON. LADY JUSTICE MUGENYI ANNE 7 Commercial HON. JUSTICE KEITIRIMA JOHN EUDES 5 Land HON. LADY JUSTICE OKALANY SUZAN 13 HC Mbale HON. LADY JUSTICE NKONGE ALEXANDRA 3 Land HON. JUSTICE ASIIMWE TADEO 5 HC Mbale HON. JUSTICE MASALU MUSENE 5 HC Kabarole
Table 38: Magistrates Name Observations Court HW ALUM AGNES 6 Nakawa HW KAGGWA JOHN FRANCIS 5 CM Kabarole HW KAGOYA JACKLINE 3 Nakawa HW KEDI PAUL 10 CM Arua HW MAWANDA JAMES EVENGE 5 CM Mbale HW TWAKYIRE SAMUEL 17 CM Mbarara HW ZAKO DORCUS 4 CM Mbale HW ODWORI PONSIANO 8 Nakawa HW. MWESIGA DAN 3 CM Kabarole HW HATANGA JULIET 3 CM Mukono HW LUBOWA DANIEL 7 CM Arua HW NANTAWO AGNESS 4 CM Mbale HW ARINAITWE ELISHA 3 CM Kabarole HW KOBURUNGA PATIENCE 3 CM Mukono HW KWAZIRA VEIN 4 CM Gulu HW SEJJEMBA DEOGRATIUS 17 CM Masaka HW DAWA FRANCIS MUTENJA 3 CM Gulu HW MAGEZI AMON 4 CM Jinja HW MUINDA TADDEO 4 CM Mukono HW KYOMUHANGI ANN HAPPY 7 CM Jinja HW AGIYO HELLEN 5 CM Jinja
78 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2019
Annex 5: Detailed Comments on Judgments Reviewed
79 | P a g e