THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY: 2018 SCORECARD
1 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 ...... 10 1.2 Scorecard Rationale ...... 11 1.3 Research Objectives ...... 12 1.4 The Scorecard ...... 12 1.5 Judgment Reviews ...... 13 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 13 2.1 Overall Approach ...... 13 2.2 Scope of the Assessment ...... 13 2.3 Stakeholders (Respondents) Targeted ...... 13 2.4 Target sample sizes – Distribution of Respondents ...... 14 2.5 Data collection Methods and Tools ...... 15 2.6 Quality Control ...... 17 2.7 The Implementation Team ...... 18 2.8 Limitations to the Research ...... 18 2.9 Challenges ...... 19 3.0 FINDINGS ...... 20 3.1 Profiles of Respondents Interviewed ...... 20 3.2 Description of Litigants ...... 22 3.3 Performance Scores ...... 25 3.3.1 Overall Scores for Higher Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 26 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 ...... 28 3.3.4 Scores for Top Performing Individual Judges and Magistrates ...... 29 3.3.5 Higher Courts Scores by Litigants ...... 30 3.3.6 High Courts Scores by Litigants ...... 30 3.3.7 Chief Magistrates Court Scores by Litigants ...... 32 3.3.8 Higher Courts Scores by Legal Professionals ...... 33 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 ...... 41 3.4.1 Courtroom Observations per Court...... 41 3.4.2 Overall Observation Scores ...... 41 3.5 Evaluation of the Court Performance Through the Lenses of the Judgments Delivered 2018 ...... 48 3.5.1 Methodology ...... 48 3.5.2 SUPREME COURT ...... 49 3.5.3 COURT OF APPEAL ...... 51 3.5.4 HIGH COURT DIVISION ...... 55 3.6 Civil Society Organizations’ Viewpoints on the Performance of Judiciary ...... 58 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 60 4.1 Conclusions ...... 60 4.2 Recommendations to Address Challenges ...... 60 4.3 Recommendations on Quality of Judgments ...... 61 Annex 1: Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals ...... 62 Annex 2: Court Scores by Litigants ...... 63
2 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Annex 3: Court Scores by Legal Professionals ...... 64 Annex 4: CSOs that Participated ...... 65 Annex 5: Detailed Comments on Judgments Reviewed ...... 66
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Number of Interviews Conducted ...... 20 Figure 2: Respondents by Territory ...... 21 Figure 3: Proportion of Interviews by Court Type ...... 21 Figure 4: Number of Interviews by Court Type ...... 22 Figure 5: Number of Interviews Conducted per Court ...... 22 Figure 6: Occupation of Litigants ...... 23 Figure 7: Litigants by Gender ...... 23 Figure 8: Litigants by Type ...... 24 Figure 9: Type of Litigants by Region ...... 24 Figure 10: Litigants by Nature of Cases ...... 25 Figure 11: Courtroom Observations per Court ...... 41
3 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stakeholders (Respondents) Targeted ...... 13 Table 2: Distribution of Respondents ...... 14 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 ...... 27 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 Judges in Supreme Court...... 29 Table 10a: Scores for Individual Judges in Court of Appeal ...... 29 Table 11: Aggregated Performances of Judges in Higher Courts ...... 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 ...... 30 Table 16: Litigants Weighted Score for Higher Courts ...... 30 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 ...... 31 Table 20: Litigants Weighted Score for Chief Magistrates Court ...... 32 Table 21: Assessment of Chief Magistrates Court by litigants ...... 32 Table 22: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for Higher Courts ...... 33 Table 23: Assessment of Higher Courts by Legal Professionals ...... 33 Table 24: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for High Courts ...... 33 Table 25: Assessment of High Courts by Legal Professionals ...... 34 Table 26: Legal Professionals Weighted Score for Chief Magistrates Courts ...... 34 Table 27: Assessment of Chief Magistrates Court Scores by Legal Professionals ...... 35 Table 28: Scores Awarded to Judges in the Supreme Court by the Legal Professionals ...... 36 Table 28a: Scores Awarded to Judges in the Court of Appeal by the Legal Professionals ...... 36 Table 29: Scores Awarded to Judges in High Courts by the Legal Professionals ...... 36 Table 30: Scores Awarded to Magistrates by the Legal Professionals ...... 37 Table 31: Scores for Judges in the Supreme Court by Litigants ...... 37 Table 31a: Scores for Judges in the Court of Appeal by Litigants ...... 37 Table 32: Scores for Judges in High Courts by Litigants ...... 38 Table 33: Scores for Magistrates by Litigants ...... 38 Table 34: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals – Judges for Supreme Court ...... 39 Table 34a: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals – Judges for Court of Appeal...... 39 Table 35: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals – Judges for High Courts ...... 39 Table 36: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals - Magistrates ...... 40 Table 37: Overall Observation Scores ...... 42 Table 38: Observation Scores for Higher Courts ...... 43 Table 39: Observation Scores for High Courts ...... 43 Table 40: Observation Scores for Chief Magistrates Courts ...... 44 Table 41: Observation Scores for Individual Judges – Supreme Court ...... 45 Table 41a: Observation Scores for Individual Judges – Court of Appeal ...... 45 Table 42: Aggregated Observed Performances of Judges – Higher Courts ...... 45 Table 43: Observation Scores for Individual Judges – High Courts ...... 45 Table 44: Aggregated Observed Performances of Judges – Hight Courts ...... 45 Table 45: Observation Scores for Individual Magistrates...... 45 Table 46: Aggregated Observed Performances of Magistrates ...... 45 Table 47: Observation Scores for Judges – Higher Courts ...... 46 Table 48: Observation Scores for Judges - High Courts ...... 46 Table 49: Observation Scores for Magistrates ...... 47
4 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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
5 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 in 2018 that incorporated experiences, learning from the first Scorecard and increased geographical coverage for improved representation and better outputs. The report provides an assessment of key performance parameters for measuring 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 major policy and organizational transformation. The Scorecard contains the core performance measurements as well as the key 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 examined the transformative role of the Judiciary through analysis of selected judgments from a section of the participating Courts. The objective was 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 delivered in year 2018.
Methodology The assessment deployed both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Data was collected from 24 Magisterial / High Court areas 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 2,468 interviews were carried out with the different categories of respondents. Overall, 1626 Litigants, 384 Legal Professionals, 41 Judges and Magistrates, 36 Clerks, 16 Registrars and 34 CSO officials were interviewed. A total of 331 observations were also made. A total of 89 judgments were reviewed and scored. These included19 under the Supreme Court, 35 under the Court of Appeal and 38 under the High Courts.
Limitations The assessment is not without limitation. Though representative, the assessment did not cover all courts in Uganda. Not all Judges and Magistrates were scored by both the Legal Professionals and Litigants. The overall scores presented in the report were computed only among Judicial Officials that were scored by both groups. Not all Judges and Magistrates were observed. The number of times observed also varied for each Judge and Magistrate. It should be highlighted that those observed only 2 or less times were dropped from analysis.
6 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Results Higher Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores o The Supreme Court scored exceptionally over 90%. Court of Appeal scored a generally commendable performance score between 70-79%. High Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores o Overall, no Hight Court scored below 60 (Low). Two (2) of the 13 Courts assessed scored exceptional over 90% assessment score. Eight (8) High Courts scored very good (80-90%) and two (2) good (70-79%). Only 1 High court had a score that can be considered fair (60-69%) – the lowest overall. Kabarole High Court at 95.1% scored the highest. Criminal Division also scored exceptionally over 90%. Magistrate Courts – Litigants and Legal Professionals combined scores o Overall, no Magistrates Court scored below 60 (Low). Three (3) of the 10 Magistrates Courts assessed scored exceptional over 90% assessment score. Five (5) Magistrates Courts scored very good (80-90%) and one (1) good (70-79%). Only 1 Magistrates Court had a score that can be considered fair (60-69%) – the lowest overall. Mbale Chief Magistrate Court at 93.8% scored the highest. Chief Magistrate Courts in Kabarole and Jinja also scored exceptionally over 90%.
Litigants scores The assessment made by Litigants for Higher Courts showed a very good performance of the Supreme Court at 90.2% and a good performance for the Court of Appeal at 74.6%. The assessment made by Litigants for High Courts showed an outstanding performance by the Criminal Division at 95.4%, followed by Kabarole High Court at 94.7%. The assessment made by Litigants for Magistrates Courts showed an outstanding performance by Masaka Chief Magistrate Court at 97.5% followed by Kabarole at 94.4%.
Legal Professional scores The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Higher Courts showed an outstanding performance by the Supreme Court at 94% and good performance for Court of Appeal at 73.6%. The assessment made by Legal Professionals for High Courts showed an outstanding performance by Kabarole High Court and Criminal Division. The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Magistrates Courts showed an outstanding performance by Chief Magistrates Courts in Kabarole, Mbarara and Mbale.
Observation Scores Overall, Judicial officials scored exceptionally on aspects relating to ensuring there is respect and order in Court, 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 Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Commercial Division of the High Court. They were also scored relatively 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 observation score between 60-69%. They were both scored the least on explaining reasons for delays. High Courts in Masaka, Mbarara and Kabarole also scored exceptionally (Over 90%). Nakawa Magistrates Court scored a perfect score of 100%. Magistrates Courts in Masaka and Mbarara also scored exceptionally (Over 90%).
Civil Society Organizations’ viewpoints on the performance of the Judiciary
7 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Members of the civil society noted that some Judicial staff lack passion and have low commitment to the work especially at the lower levels. They are usually not available all the time, there is a lot of delays in convening court hearing (starting late), absenteeism without explanation and unnecessary case adjournments. Most members felt that cases take too long to be concluded. Whereas many attributed it to too much backlog and understaffing, many also felt that many cases are adjourned unnecessarily, without giving reasons in some instances. Members of the civil society largely perceived Judicial Officials as being fair in Administration of Justice. However, some felt that there is discriminative application of the law to the rich and the poor – in most cases being in favour of the rich.
There was almost a universal agreement among members of civil society about the lack of transparency and integrity among most Judicial Officials. It was reported that files are manipulated by Court Clerks or go missing while at Court or are hidden. It was reported that there is a lot of asking for bribes through Clerks. Some felt it is because of low pay and poor working conditions.
Recommendations to Address Challenges o Increase staffing of Judicial Officers. The Judicial Service Commission should be facilitated to carry out recruitment of more Judicial Officials and support staff - particularly Court of Appeal that has a large backlog. o Capacity building for Judicial Officers, especially specialized trainings for officers of particular courts like the Anti-Corruption Court. This was also cited for cases related to mental health. o Improve remuneration: The Government of Uganda should urgently address the issue of the under-funding to the Judiciary. Arrangements to provide adequate working space for Judges, Registrars, Magistrates and other Staff members should be expedited. o There is need to improve availability of basic facilities for Court users during Court sessions including Persons With Disability. Mukono High Court was cited as an example of a court that lacks facilities that are accessible to lawyers and the public. o In terms of appointments and promotions, due care must be taken to appoint judicial officers whose skill in a particular area would enhance or be beneficial to the particular line of appointment. In other words, the specialty and background of Judges needs to be considered when making appointments for cases. o There is need to frequently transfer Clerks and other support staff to eliminate the cases of solicitation of bribes in the names of Judicial Officials. o Monitoring and evaluation of Judicial staff: This is recommended to improve attitude and commitment to work among Judicial Officers.
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 gist of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues. o Being the precedent setting Court, the Supreme Court should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid uncertainty in lower courts. In some instances, the Court should go a step further in expanding the law to the fullest extent possible.
8 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Court of Appeal o Of importance in this respect is the necessity to ensure that Justices of the Court of Appeal (and, in that regard, the other Courts, the High Court and Supreme Court) share the Judicial workload in an equitable manner. In effect, there is need for the empaneling of Justices of appeal to reflect a fair distribution of the workload, bearing in mind the nature and breadth of the cases assigned. o There were four (4) judgments rendered by individual Judges - these were in respect of Criminal Applications for grant of bail pending Appeal. Notably, although the Applications were all grounded on “advanced age” as the basis, Judges declined in both (although understandably in the latter case, the applicants had been convicted of capital offences). The contradiction over similar factors speaks to the need for the development of guidelines. High Courts o The Principal Judge should request all the Judges to have their judgments available to the stakeholders not more than two weeks from the date of delivery. o Refresher training on standardization of judgments must be undertaken to improve the quality of judgments.
9 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, recognized the fact that Uganda’s post- independence period had been largely characterized by turbulent political and constitutional instability with a restricted space for freedom, constitutionalism, rule of law and democracy. The 1995 Constitution clearly provides that Uganda will be governed by three independent, but mutually supportive arms of government namely the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary; with the intention that government can, and should be legally limited in its exercise of powers and in accordance with the mandate in the Constitution.
The mandate of the Judiciary as enshrined in Article 126(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 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 to the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure effectiveness in 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: • Justice is done to all irrespective of their social or economic status. • Justice is Administered in a timely manner without delay. • Adequate compensation is awarded to victims of wrongs. • Reconciliation is promoted between parties. • Substantive Justice is Administered without undue regard to technicalities.
1.1.1 Functions • Administer justice through resolving disputes between citizen and citizen and between the state and citizen; • Interpret the Constitution and the laws of Uganda; • Promote the rule of law and to contribute to the maintenance of order in society; • Safeguard the Constitution and uphold democratic principles; • Protect human rights of individuals and groups.
1.1.2 Judiciary Constraints 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 finance and Administrative support has inadvertently bred institutional weaknesses in the form of understaffing, case back log and more severely systemic corruption in the Judiciary.
10 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
1.2 Scorecard Rationale Subsequent to earlier studies done by CEPIL including numerous consultations made with the legal fraternity, Judiciary, other government departments and institutions, 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. 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. Therefore, 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 in 2018 that incorporated experiences and learning from the first Scorecard and increased geographical coverage for improved representation and better outputs. This idea strengthens sample sizes used in the data collection process. It is anticipated that there will be greater excitement and enhanced participation by the Judicial Officers owing to the overwhelming support and continued input from the Judiciary. As stated in the first Scorecard Report, the appreciation and hence the real value of this tool is dependent on the credibility of the observable trends that have been established from the parameters deployed. This tool is used to facilitate processes that can be applied to inculcate desirable behaviors, better-quality performances and accountability of the concerned officers. The Scorecard Report provides an assessment report of key performance parameters for measuring 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 this 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 this 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.
1.2.1 Why Scorecard is important 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.
11 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
1.3 Research Objectives 1. To establish a set of measurements parameters, also referred to as a battery of parameters for conducting an assessment of performance of the concerned individual judicial official in executing his or her duties. 2. To collect information from primary and secondary sources, process the data, and collate them in a meaningful format to facilitate analysis and awarding respective assessment scores using the agreed measurement parameters for the key judicial officials under evaluation.
1.4 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, the understanding and the 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 • 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 case in due time • Manages Court calendar 5) Behavior and attitude • Recognizes culture, 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
12 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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.
1.5 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 examined the transformative role of the Judiciary through analysis of selected judgments from a section of the participating Courts. The objective was 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 deployed both qualitative and quantitative techniques in which outputs from the qualitative technique reinforced the design, application, analysis and results for developing the performance indicators. Furthermore, the qualitative technique presented 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. Therefore, the team deployed a triangulation technique in order to corroborate and test validity of results from the respective methods. Technically, triangulation assumes that a weakness in one method is compensated for by another; for that reason, using multiple methods can help facilitate deeper understanding of salient issues.
2.2 Scope of the Assessment Fieldwork was conducted for a period of three and a half month beginning from October up to mid December 2018 in 24 Magisterial / High Court areas selected from the five demarcations of: Headquarters; Central region; Eastern region; Northern region; and Western region. The process of reviewing judgments was conducted between April and August 2019. The subsequent processes of data capture, analysis, report writing began from mid-December in 2018 with a final report due in August 2019.
2.3 Stakeholders (Respondents) Targeted Following the completion of reviews of relevant documents, 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. This task was carried out to facilitate the selection process of important stakeholders for consultations. The list which included Litigants, Legal Professionals, CSOs, JLOS, Judges, Registrars, Magistrates, Clerks, Religious and District leaders was shaped up with the guidance from CEPIL and the Judiciary.
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
13 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Stakeholder Importance Responsibilities 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 was 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 were then disaggregated and spread by type of Court and region.
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents 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)
14 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 were carefully structured in line with the identified parameters to elicit appropriate responses from the respective respondents. The relevant tools developed and used were: a) Structured questionnaires with semantic scales. These were 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 was asked to rate each of the issues while making reference to the semantic scale provided. The interviewing process took on average thirty minutes to complete. By design this process was brief enough to avoid interviewee fatigue and lack of interest in answering questions. At the data management phase, weighting was 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 – used 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 was provided to incorporate questions that would trigger sufficient responses regarding the performance indicators. Specifically, this tool targeted Judges, Registrars and Magistrates who are considered adept in the Administration of justice and therefore were able to offer expert knowledge for improving service delivery within the Judiciary. In addition, this method enabled the research team 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 was 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 were the religious leaders, local district leaders, police officials and other prominent persons in the selected judicial areas. The ensuing discussions were moderated by knowledgeable and experienced facilitators who introduced topics for discussions and helped the groups to participate in lively and natural discussions amongst themselves. FGDs enabled 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 were recorded, transcribed and carefully
15 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018 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 the 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 was 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). In conclusion open-ended questions where strengths and weaknesses of the Judge in building trust and satisfaction of the court users were noted. Some of these issues appear in the Court manual or guide. On the scheduled day of courtroom observations, a research assistant arrived 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 arrived and more importantly when the court proceedings started. The research assistant then took a seat in the courtroom like any other person attending a Court session and paid attention to the Judge and scored him or her using a guide from the questionnaire. The research assistants were instructed not to engage in any court deliberations but make observations as required. The tool contained 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 were then scored using a five-point semantic scale ranging from 1 [One] on one end to 5 [Exemplary] at the extreme end for each aspect. At least two observation sessions (2 for upcountry courts and 4 for Kampala Courts) were carried out in a week per court hence a maximum of eight observations were conducted by a research assistant per court within one month. e) Documentary Review: Preceding the design and development of research tools, a review of all the 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 10. Local Government Scorecard Report: 2017 11. Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 12. Case Backlog Reports status from the Judiciary 2017-2018 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
16 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 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: 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 took 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 would be 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 for the pilot were modified based on lessons learned and used for the follow up study in 2018. 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 were recruited for the data collection exercise. They were proficient in both English and local languages used in areas where they were deployed for effective interpretation of questionnaires to respondents. c) Research assistants and supervisors were 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 were conducted for research assistants and supervisors to ensure that they understood the processes and their responsibilities; and were confident in executing this assignment. e) All the questionnaires were double checked for completeness in the field. If any anomalies were found, they were quickly brought to the attention of the research coordinator for immediate correction. f) Spot checks were made in the field, especially within Kampala where the bulk of work. One (1) spot check for each up-country station and three (3) spot checks for each Kampala station were conducted. These kept the research teams in check and were 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 were verified by their respective supervisors and promptly couriered to the CEPIL Secretariat at the end of every two weeks. This was also proof of accountability of work going on in the field.
17 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018 h) De-briefing sessions were held immediately after every FGD to ensure that correct records of the deliberations were promptly captured and losses due to memory lapses were reduced during the transcription of information. i) Monthly meetings were also held by the core technical team to track the progress and confirm that any errors and challenges reported were resolved. j) Deployed one (1) supervisor for every court area. The supervisor’s role was to ensure that the research assistants complied with the interview processes and deliver all returns as expected within the stipulated time period. k) Data entry was carried out by qualified officials, and great care was taken to ensure that all the codes were properly captured from each questionnaire to guarantee reliability of outputs. SPSS package was 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 and Ms. Lydia Angwech. The technical consultants; Ms. Diana Angwech and Mr. Rogers Twesigye provided their 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; Prof. Ssempebwa Fredrick, Dr. Henry Onoria, Mr. Phillip Karugaba, Mr. Francis Gimara, Mr. Rukundo Solomon, Ms. Faith Atoo, Ms. Doreen Kansiime, H/W Daniel Bwambale, and Ms. Sylivia Namawejje. 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 to 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.
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
18 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 did not cover all courts in Uganda. This can be linked to limited financial base.
e) Not all Judges and Magistrates were scored by both the Legal Professionals and Litigants. The overall performance score combines legal professionals and litigants score. However, some Judges and Magistrates were only scored by either only legal professionals or litigants. The overall scores presented in the report were computed only among Judicial officials that were scored by both groups.
f) Not all Judges and Magistrates were observed. Some Judges and Magistrates did not hear any cases during the data collection period and therefore the team had no opportunity to observe and score their court performance. The number of times observed also varied for each Judge and Magistrate. It should be highlighted that those observed only 2 or less times were dropped from analysis.
2.9 Challenges Fieldwork was conducted within the planned timeline and the overall objective was to enhance Judicial Independence in Uganda by promoting an accountable & effective Judiciary. However, here below are some of the major operational and institutional challenges that were identified or had influence on the outcome of the study. a) Limited data collection duration. Data collection lasted for two and a half months. With regard to increased scope (sample sizes) compared to the pilot - the second assessment required same or longer data collection duration. The pilot data collection lasted for three months. This can be attributed to delayed start and limited financial base. b) There were few trained research assistants which can be linked to limited financial base. c) Judicial Officers absent from desks as they were away on trainings or in other courts when sessions were ongoing. 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.
19 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
e) 3.0 FINDINGS
3.1 Profiles of Respondents Interviewed 3.1.1 Category of Respondents A total of 2,468 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 important component of consumers of the judicial services in the country. Interviews with Litigants represented 66% 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, 36 Judges, 21 Magistrates, 36 Clerks, 16 Registrars and 34 CSO officials were interviewed. One 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 = 2468
Litigants 1626
Legal Professionals 384
Observations 331
Judges / Magistrates 41
Clerks 36
CSO officials 34
Registras 16
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
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
20 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018 services of the selected Courts as well as generate sufficient viewpoints through continuous 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
10 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 69 2 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 32 5 4 3 3 3 3 149 17 19 22 24 23 15 20 27 25 17
20 22 24 26 155 23 24 24 17 22
113 112 112 109 88 604 105 108 93 92 90
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 2010 interviews conducted with Litigants and Legal Professionals, 57% were held at High Courts and 37% at Chief Magistrates’ Courts. Only 6% were conducted at Higher Courts (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court).
Figure 3: Proportion of Interviews by Court Type Higher Courts, 6%
Chief Magistrate Court, 37%
High Court Circuit, 57%
(n=2010
21 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Figure 4: Number of Interviews by Court Type
Supreme Court 30 27 Court Of Appeal 52 19 Land Division 96 22 Anti-Corruption Court 98 23 Family Division 102 23 Commercial Division 111 21 Criminal Division 115 20 High Court Circuit 408 97 Chief Magistrate Court 614 132
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Litigants (n=1626) Legal Professionals (n=384)
3.1.4 Litigants and Legal Professionals by Court The highest percentage of interviews were conducted at Mengo Chief Magistrate’s Court followed by Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court, and the Criminal Division and Commercial Division of the High Court– these were largely with Litigants. The least number of interviews were conducted at Masaka and Gulu Chief Magistrate’s Courts. 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 140 136 140 132 135 118 121 120 102 100 91
73 74 80 70 69 72 71 62 61 57 58 57 59 60 57 60 53 45 37 40
20
0
3.2 Description of Litigants Occupation: Majority of the people interviewed were involved in some form of employment. 20% of these were commercial farmers or business people; 16% peasant farmers; 14% were busy in
22 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018 the informal sector; 12% in public service; and 16%, a combined total of people who do not have much to contribute to the economy (unemployed, retired and students).
Figure 6: Occupation of Litigants TOTAL = 1626
Commercial farmer / Business person 20% Peasant farmer 16% Informal employment (casual, bodaboda, taxi tout… 14% Any other 7% Un-employed 7% Public service (middle level) 6% Professional in private 6% Student / Volunteer 5% Private / NGO (middle level) 5% Retired / Pensioner 4% Public Service (senior level) 4% Private / NGO (junior level) 3% Private / NGO (senior level) 2% Public Service (junior level) 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
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 2 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 7: Litigants by Gender
Missing 4%
Female 35%
Male 61%
23 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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; 9% victims and 10% prisoners.
Figure 8: Litigants by Type
Victim, 9%
Prisoner, 10% Complainant/Plain tiff/Petitioner, 31%
Accused/Defenda nt/Respondent, 25%
Witness, 26%
Figure 9: Type of Litigants by Region
1% 3% 3% 25% 5% 5% 11% 7% 5% 12% 15% 13% 32% 11% 7% 6%
12% 5% 1% 4% 8% 6% 2% 5% 8% 6% 4% 55% 3% 8% 3% 2% 12% 7% 8% 3% 5% 11% 6% 15% 27% 11% 8% 10% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 30% 8% 5% 3% 3%
Hq Kla Mengo Mukono Nakawa Kabarole Mbale Mbarara Jinja Gulu Arua Masaka
Complainant/Plaintiff/Petitioner Victim Witness Accused/Defendant/Respondent Prisoner
24 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Litigants by Nature of Cases: Most of the cases handled by the Courts were criminal followed by civil and the least being applications. 21% of the cases were registered as being handled in Courts that have the jurisdiction to handle both civil and criminal cases.
Figure 10: Litigants by Nature of Cases
Application, 1% Appeal, 3%
Others, 3%
Commercial, 8% Criminal, 27%
Land, 16%
Both Civil & Civil, 20% Criminal, 21%
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 5% f) Communication 5%
1 – ref Judicial Performance Evaluation in Ethiopia: Local Reforms Meet Global Challenges
25 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 collated 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 Over 90% assessment score (Exceptional): The Supreme Court scored exceptionally over 90%.
o 70% - 79% assessment score (Good): Court of Appeal scored a generally commendable performance score between 70-79%.
Table 4: Scores for the Courts Performance Overall Score (%) Court Exceptional +90 o Supreme Court Very Good 80 - 90 o Good 70 - 79 o Court of Appeal Fair 60 - 69 o Low 50 - 59 o
Table 5: Summary of Combined Court Scores by Litigants and Legal Professionals % score Impartialit Certaint Professionalism Behavior and attitude Communication Fairness y y Maximum points 100 30 5 10 5 5 45 Total 83.1 25.0 3.8 8.4 4.1 4.3 37.5 Supreme Court 92.1 27.8 4.4 9.4 8.2 4.5 41.3 Court of Appeal 74.1 23.0 3.5 7.8 6.3 3.5 32.7
3.3.2 Overall Scores for High Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals a) Overall, no High Court scored below 60 (Low): Two (2) of the 13 courts assessed scored exceptional over 90% assessment score. Eight (8) High Courts scored very good (80-90%) and two (2) good (70-79%). Only one (1) High Court had a score that can be considered fair (60-69%) – the lowest overall.
b) Over 90% assessment score (Exceptional): Kabarole High Court at 95.1% scored the highest score. Criminal Division also scored exceptionally over 90%.
26 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
c) 80% - 90% assessment score (Very Good): Most of the High Courts scored very good. This included High Courts in Masaka, Mbarara, Arua, Jinja and Mbale as well as Commercial, Family Divisions and Anti-Corruption in Kampala.
d) 70% - 79% assessment score (Good): Gulu and Land Division High Courts scored a generally commendable performance score between 70-79%.
e) 60% - 69% assessment score (Fair): Only Mukono High Court scored a fair performance score between 60-69% – the lowest overall.
f) 50% - 59% assessment score (Low): No Court was scored in this category.
Table 6: Scores for the Courts Performance Overall Score (%) Court Exceptional +90 o HC Kabarole o Criminal Division Very Good 80 - 90 o Commercial Division o HC Masaka o Family Division o HC Mbarara o HC Jinja o HC Arua o HC Mbale o Anti-Corruption Court Good 70 - 79 o Land Division o HC Gulu Fair 60 - 69 o HC Mukono Low 50 - 59 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 83.1 25.0 3.8 8.4 4.1 4.3 37.5 HC Kabarole 95.1 29.3 4.3 9.6 8.2 4.6 42.6 Criminal Division 94.9 28.0 4.6 9.5 8.4 4.7 43.4 Commercial Division 85.3 25.0 4.3 8.9 7.9 4.4 38.4 HC Masaka 85.2 25.4 3.9 8.9 7.5 4.1 38.9 Family Division 84.6 24.6 3.8 8.5 6.3 4.0 39.6 HC Mbarara 84.5 24.8 3.9 9.2 7.4 4.1 37.7 HC Jinja 84.3 25.4 2.8 8.6 7.2 4.0 39.0 HC Arua 80.6 24.8 2.5 7.8 7.1 3.9 37.2 HC Mbale 80.3 24.5 3.6 8.5 6.4 3.6 36.6 Mengo 79.9 24.5 3.7 8.1 6.7 4.1 35.3 Anti-Corruption 79.8 23.8 3.5 8.3 6.8 3.8 36.0 Court Land Division 79.1 24.2 3.7 7.7 7.2 4.0 35.3 HC Gulu 77.3 21.8 3.3 7.6 6.7 3.6 36.9 HC Mukono 65.1 19.7 3.1 6.7 5.9 3.3 29.4
27 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
3.3.3 Overall Scores for Chief Magistrates Courts by Litigants and Legal Professionals a) Overall, no Magistrates Court scored below 60 (Low): Three (3) of the 10 Magistrate’s Courts assessed scored exceptional over 90% assessment score. Five (5) Magistrate’s Courts scored very good (80-90%) and one (1) Good (70-79%). Only one (1) Magistrate’s Court had a score that can be considered fair (60-69%) – the lowest overall.
b) Over 90% assessment score (Exceptional): Mbale Chief Magistrate Court at 93.8% scored the highest. Chief Magistrate Courts in Kabarole and Jinja also scored exceptionally over 90%.
c) 80% - 90% assessment score (Very Good): Most of the CM Courts scored very good. This included CM Courts in Masaka, Mbarara, Arua, Gulu and Mengo in Kampala.
d) 70% - 79% assessment score (Good): Nakawa CM Court scored a generally commendable performance between 70-79%.
e) 60% - 69% assessment score (Fair): Only Mukono CM Court scored a fair performance between 60-69% – the lowest overall.
f) 50% - 59% assessment score (Low): No CM Court was scored in this category.
Table 8: Scores for the Courts Performance Overall Score (%) Court Exceptional +90 o CM Mbale o CM Kabarole o CM Jinja Very Good 80 - 90 o CM Gulu o CM Mbarara o CM Arua o CM Masaka o Mengo Good 70 - 79 o Nakawa Fair 60 - 69 o CM Mukono Low 50 - 59 o None
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 83.1 25.0 3.8 8.4 4.1 4.3 37.5 CM Mbale 93.8 27.5 4.5 9.4 8.1 4.6 42.9 CM Kabarole 90.5 28.2 4.0 9.1 8.0 4.4 40.2 CM Jinja 90.5 27.1 4.2 8.4 7.8 4.6 41.6 CM Gulu 85.1 25.0 3.9 8.4 6.8 4.0 39.6 CM Mbarara 84.6 26.6 3.9 8.4 7.9 4.0 37.5 CM Arua 82.4 25.0 3.4 8.2 7.2 4.2 37.1 CM Masaka 81.0 24.0 3.6 8.0 7.4 3.8 37.4 Mengo 79.9 24.5 3.7 8.1 6.7 4.1 35.3 Nakawa 77.7 22.6 3.6 8.0 7.7 3.8 35.7 CM Mukono 62.8 17.3 2.9 6.5 5.4 3.0 30.0
28 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
3.3.4 Scores for Top Performing Individual Judges and Magistrates
Table 10: Scores for Individual Judges in Supreme Court Ranking Name Scores (%) 1 HON CHIEF JUSTICE BART KATUREEBE 94% 2 HON LADY JUSTICE STELLA ARACH-AMOKO 90% NB: Only 2 Judges for the Supreme Court were scored by both Litigants and Legal Professionals.
Table 11a: Scores for Individual Judges in Court of Appeal Ranking Name Scores (%) 1 HON JUSTICE REMMY KASULE 85% 2 HON JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU 75% 3 HON JUSTICE ALFONSE OWINY-DOLLO 74% 4 HON LADY JUSTICE HELLEN ABULU OBURA 72% 5 HON JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA 65% NB: Only 5 Judges for the Court of Appeal were scored by both Litigants and Legal Professionals.
Table 12: Aggregated Performances of Judges in Higher Courts Performance Score Number scored (n=7) Exceptional +90 1 Very Good 80 - 90 2 Good 70 - 79 3 Fair 60 - 69 1 Low 50 - 59 Poor Below 50 NB: Based on aggregation scores from both Litigants and Legal Professionals.
Table 13: Scores for Individual Judges in High Courts Ranking Name Scores (%) Court 1 HON JUSTICE WILSON KWESIGA 97% Criminal Division 2 HON JUSTICE ALEX AJIJI MACKAY 96% High Court Lira 3 HON JUSTICE YASIN NYANZI 96% Criminal Division 4 HON LADY JUSTICE OLIVE MUKWAYA 92% Family Division
Table 14: Aggregated Performances of Judges in High Courts Performance Score Number scored (n=28) Exceptional +90 7 Very Good 80 - 90 14 Good 70 - 79 7 Fair 60 - 69 Low 50 - 59 Poor Below 50 NB: Based on aggregation scores from both Litigants and Legal Professionals.
Table 15: Scores for Individual Magistrates Ranking Name Scores (%) Court 1 HIS WORSHIP SAMUEL TWAKYIRE 95% Chief Magistrate Mbarara 2 HIS WORSHIP JOHN PAUL OSAURO 93% Magistrate G.1 Mbale 3 HER WORSHIP AGNES ALUM 93% Chief Magistrate Nakawa 3 HER WORSHIP NAZIFAH NAMAYANJA 92% Magistrate G.1 Kabarole
29 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
4 HER WORSHIP HAPPY ANNE KYOMUHANGI 91% Magistrate G.1 Mbale 5 HIS WORSHIP ELISHA ARINAITWE 90% Magistrate G. 1 Kabarole
Table 16: Aggregated Performances of Magistrates Performance Score Number scored (n=22) Exceptional +90 4 Very Good 80 - 90 10 Good 70 - 79 4 Fair 60 - 69 2 Low 50 - 59 1 Poor Below 50 1 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 very good performance of the Supreme Court at 90.2% and a good performance for the Court of Appeal at 74.6%.
Table 17: Litigants Weighted Score for Higher Courts % Score Impartiality Certainty Professionalism Behavior and Attitude Communication Fairness Maximum points 100 30.0 5 10 5.0 5 45 Total 82.9 24.5 3.7 8.4 3.9 4.3 38.1 Supreme Court 90.2 26.3 4.3 9.3 4.3 4.65 41.4 Court of Appeal 74.6 22.7 3.45 7.6 3.3 3.65 33.9
Table 18: Assessment of Higher Courts by Litigants Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Supreme Court 90.2 Communication; Professionalism; Fairness in Certainty; Behavior and Administration of justice; Impartiality Attitude Court of Appeal 74.6 Professionalism; Impartiality; Fairness in Certainty; Behavior and Administration of justice; Attitude; Communication;
3.3.6 High Courts Scores by Litigants The assessment made by Litigants for High Courts showed an outstanding performance by the Criminal Division at 95.4%, followed by Kabarole High Court at 94.7%.
Table 19: 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 82.9 24.5 3.7 8.4 3.9 4.3 38.1 Criminal Division 95.4 28.1 4.7 9.5 4.7 4.9 43.5 HC Kabarole 94.7 28.5 4.25 9.6 4.6 4.85 42.9 HC Arua 88.1 25.1 2.7 8.4 3.7 4.45 43.8 Commercial Division 86.2 24.2 4.45 9.3 4.3 4.45 39.6 Family Division 84.6 24.6 3.8 8.5 4.0 4.1 39.6 HC Jinja 84.4 24.3 2.95 8.8 3.9 4.55 39.9 HC Masaka 83.5 24.5 3.7 8.8 3.6 4 39
30 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
% Impartialit Certaint Professionalis Behavior and Communicatio Fairnes score y y m Attitude n s HC Mbale 83.1 23.1 4 8.6 3.8 3.7 39.9 Anti-Corruption Court 82.8 24.8 3.55 8.1 3.9 4.45 38.1 HC Mbarara 80.7 22.4 3.5 9.3 3.8 4.9 36.9 Land Division 79.6 24.0 3.7 7.6 4.1 4.2 36 HC Mukono 71.0 20.0 3.2 7.5 3.3 3.75 33.3 HC Gulu 68.3 17.9 2.45 6.3 3.0 3.65 35.1
Table 20: Assessment of High Courts by Litigants Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Criminal Division 95.4 Professionalism; Communication; Behavior and attitude; Certainty; Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice HC Kabarole 94.7 Communication; Fairness in Administration Certainty of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Impartiality; Professionalism; HC Arua 88.1 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice; Commercial Division 87.1 Professionalism; Communication; Fairness in Behavior and Attitude; Administration of justice; Certainty; Impartiality Family Division 84.6 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice; HC Jinja 84.4 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice; HC Masaka 83.5 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice; HC Mbale 83.1 Professionalism; Fairness in Administration Communication; Behavior of justice; Certainty; and Attitude; Impartiality Anti-Corruption Court 82.8 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice; HC Mbarara 80.7 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice; Land Division 79.6 Communication; Impartiality; Fairness in Certainty; Professionalism Administration of justice; Behavior and Attitude HC Mukono 71.0 Communication; Professionalism; Fairness in Certainty; Behavior and Administration of justice; Attitude; Impartiality HC Gulu 68.3 Communication; Fairness in Administration Certainty; Behavior and of justice; Attitude; Impartiality; Professionalism
31 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
3.3.7 Chief Magistrates Court Scores by Litigants The assessment made by Litigants for Magistrates Courts showed an outstanding performance by Masaka Chief Magistrate Court at 97.5% followed by Kabarole at 94.4%.
Table 21: 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 82.9 24.5 3.7 8.4 3.9 4.3 38.1 CM Masaka 97.5 29.0 4.7 9.7 4.3 4.9 45 CM Kabarole 92.2 27.8 4.15 8.9 4.5 4.85 42 CM Jinja 87.6 26.0 3.85 8 3.8 4.3 41.7 CM Mbarara 86.7 26.7 3.55 8.6 4.4 4.45 39 Nakawa 84.2 26.3 3.95 8.6 4.3 4.45 36.6 CM Mbale 82.3 24.2 3.5 8.4 4.0 4.4 37.8 CM Gulu 78.4 22.1 3.35 7.7 3.4 3.55 38.4 CM Arua 78.3 24.8 3.35 7.3 3.6 3.85 35.4 Mengo 76.4 22.8 3.3 7.6 3.6 4 35.1 CM Mukono 61.9 16.5 2.5 6.8 2.7 3.05 30.3
Table 22: Assessment of Chief Magistrates Court by litigants Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements CM Masaka 97.5 Communication, Fairness in Administration of Behavior and Attitude justice; Certainty; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior and Attitude CM Kabarole 92.2 Communication; Fairness in Administration Certainty of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Impartiality; Professionalism CM Jinja 87.6 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice; CM Mbarara 86.7 Communication; Fairness in Administration Certainty of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior and Attitude Nakawa 84.2 Communication; Professionalism; Fairness in Administration Impartiality; Behavior and Attitude of justice; Certainty CM Mbale 82.3 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior and attitude CM Gulu 78.4 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice CM Arua 78.3 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice Mengo 76.4 Communication; Professionalism; Certainty; Behavior and Impartiality; Fairness in Administration of Attitude justice CM Mukono 61.9 Fairness in Administration of justice; Communication; Professionalism Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude
32 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
3.3.8 Higher Courts Scores by Legal Professionals The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Higher Courts showed an outstanding performance by the Supreme Court at 94% and good performance for Court of Appeal at 73.6%.
Table 23: 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 83.2 25.5 8.5 36.9 3.85 4.2 4.3 Supreme Court 94.0 29.4 9.5 41.1 4.5 4.7 4.75 Court of Appeal 73.6 23.4 7.9 31.5 3.6 3.7 3.55
Table 24: Assessment of Higher Courts by Legal Professionals Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements Supreme Court 94.0 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Certainty Court of Appeal 73.6 Professionalism; Impartiality Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty
3.3.9 High Courts Scores by Legal Professionals The assessment made by Legal Professionals for High Courts showed an outstanding performance by Kabarole High Court and the Criminal Division of the High Court.
Table 25: 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 83.2 25.5 8.5 36.9 3.85 4.2 4.3 HC Kabarole 95.6 30 9.7 42.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 Criminal Division 94.5 27.9 9.4 43.2 4.4 4.7 4.9 HC Mbarara 88.2 27.3 9.1 38.4 4.25 4.4 4.8 HC Masaka 87.0 26.4 8.9 38.7 4 4.7 4.3 HC Gulu 86.3 25.8 9.0 38.7 4.1 4.3 4.45 Commercial 84.3 25.8 8.6 37.2 4.1 4.5 4.2 Division HC Jinja 84.2 26.4 8.4 38.1 2.7 4.1 4.55 Land Division 78.5 24.3 7.8 34.5 3.75 3.9 4.35 HC Mbale 77.6 25.8 8.3 33.3 3.25 3.4 3.5 Anti-Corruption 76.7 22.8 8.5 33.9 3.35 3.7 4.4 Court HC Arua 73.2 24.6 7.2 30.6 2.3 4.2 4.35 HC Mukono 51.8 17.4 5.7 20.4 2.8 3.2 2.3
33 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 26: Assessment of High Courts by Legal Professionals Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements HC Kabarole 95.6 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty Criminal Division 94.5 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty HC Mbarara 88.2 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty HC Masaka 87.0 Communication; Fairness in Certainty Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; HC Gulu 86.3 Communication; Fairness in Certainty Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Commercial Division 84.3 Communication; Professionalism; Fairness in Administration of justice; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty HC Jinja 84.2 Communication; Fairness in Certainty Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Land Division 78.5 Communication; Professionalism; Fairness in Administration of justice; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty HC Mbale 77.6 Communication; Fairness in Behavior & Attitude; Certainty; Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Anti-Corruption Court 76.7 Communication; Fairness in Behavior & Attitude; Certainty; Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; HC Arua 73.2 Communication; Impartiality; Certainty; Professionalism; Fairness in Behavior & Attitude; Administration of justice; HC Mukono 51.8 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty
3.3.10 Chief Magistrates Court Scores by Legal Professionals The assessment made by Legal Professionals for Magistrates Courts showed an outstanding performance by CM Courts in Kabarole, Mbarara and Mbale.
Table 27: 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 83.2 25.5 8.5 36.9 3.85 4.2 4.3 CM Kabarole 94.4 29.7 9.7 41.4 4.45 4.4 4.75
34 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
CM Mbarara 90.9 28.5 9.4 39.6 4.4 4.4 4.6 CM Mbale 90.0 26.1 9.1 40.8 4.35 4.9 4.8 CM Jinja 88.9 26.4 7.8 41.1 4.25 4.8 4.55 CM Masaka 85.6 25.2 8.3 39.6 3.9 4.0 4.65 Nakawa 84.3 25.2 8.5 38.1 3.9 4.2 4.4 CM Gulu 82.6 24 8.8 37.5 3.95 4.1 4.25 CM Arua 82.4 25.8 8.0 36.3 3.35 4.3 4.65 Mengo 75.7 22.8 7.6 33.9 3.4 3.9 4.15 CM Mukono 63.7 18 6.1 29.7 3.25 3.2 3.4
Table 28: Assessment of Chief Magistrates Court Scores by Legal Professionals Court Scores (%) Commendable Performance Areas for Improvements CM Kabarole 94.4 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty CM Mbarara 90.9 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty CM Mbale 90.0 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Certainty CM Jinja 88.9 Communication; Fairness in Professionalism; Administration of justice; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Certainty CM Masaka 85.6 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & Attitude; Certainty Nakawa 84.3 Communication; Fairness in Certainty Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; CM Gulu 82.6 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Certainty CM Arua 82.4 Communication; Fairness in Certainty Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Mengo 75.7 Communication; Fairness in Certainty Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; CM Mukono 63.7 Communication; Fairness in Administration of justice; Professionalism; Impartiality; Behavior & attitude; Certainty
35 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 29: Scores Awarded to Judges in the Supreme Court by the Legal Professionals Name LP Score STELLA ARACH AMOKO (Justice SC) 96% BART KATUREEBE (Justice SC) 95% PAUL KAHAIBALE MUGAMBA (Justice SC) 95% JOTHAM TUMWESIGYE (Justice SC) 91% RICHARD BUTEERA (Justice SC) 88%
Table 30a: Scores Awarded to Judges in the Court of Appeal by the Legal Professionals Name LP Score STEPHEN EGONDA-NTENDE (Justice COA) 90% REMMY KASULE (Justice COA) 86% KENNETH KAKURU (Justice COA) 76% ALFONSE OWINY-DOLLO (Justice COA) 75% HELLEN ABULU OBURA (Justice COA) 73% CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA (Justice COA) 64%
Table 31: Scores Awarded to Judges in High Courts by the Legal Professionals Name LP Name LP Score Score AJIJI ALEX MACKEY (Judge – Lira) 99% NABISINDE WINFRED (Judge Masaka) 86% ZEIJA FLAVIAN (Judge Mbarara) 96% NAMUNDI GODREY (Judge Family 86% MASALU MUSENE WILSON (Judge 95% Division) Fortportal) BILLY KAINAMURA (Judge Commercial.) 84% WILSON KWESIGWA (Judge Criminal 95% ASSIMWE TADEO (Judge Mbale) 84% Division) JOYCE KAVUMA (Judge Mbarara) 84% OLIVE KAZAARWE MUKWAYA (Judge 94% Family Division) GIDUDU LAWRENCE (Judge Anti- 82% FLAVIA SENOGA ANGLIN (Judge 93% Corruption) Criminal Division) DAMALIE LWANGA (Judge Land 78% YASIN NYANZI (Judge Criminal 93% Division) Division) EVA LUSWATA (Judge Jinja) 77% MICHAEL ELUBU (Judge Jinja) 91% DAVID WANGUTUSI (Judge 76% JANE FRANCIS ABODO (Judge Criminal 91% Commercial.) Division) OJOK ANTHONY (Judge Arua) 73% ANNE B MUGENYI (Judge Commercial.) 91% MARGARET TIBULYA (Judge Anti- 72% KETRAH KITARIISIBWA KATUNGUKA 90% Corruption) (Judge FD) CORNELIA KAKOOZA SABIITI (Judge 69% JANE ELIZABETH ALIVIDZA (Judge 88% LD) Commercial.) MARGARET MUTONYI (Judge Mukono) 69% DAVID MATOVU (Judge Family 87% SUZAN OKALANY (Judge Mbale) 66% Division) MUBIRU STEPHEN (Judge Gulu) 87%
36 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 32: Scores Awarded to Magistrates by the Legal Professionals Name LP Name LP Score Score KEDI PAUL (Magistrate G.1 Arua) 99% SANYU MUKASA (Magistrate G.1 83% TWAKYIRE SAMUEL (CM Mbarara) 99% Mbarara) LORNA TAKUNDANE (Magistrate G.1 83% OSAURO JOHN PAUL (Magistrate G.I 97% Mengo) Mbale) AMON MUGEZI (Magistrate G.1 Jinja) 82% ALUM AGNES 94% ESTHER ASIIMWE (Magistrate G.1Jinja) 80% NAMAYANJA NAZIFAH (Magistrate 94% G.1 Fort portal) NANTAAWO AGNES (G.1 Mbale) 78% ELISHA ARINAITWE (Magistrate G.1 93% DEOGRATIOUS SSEJEMBA (CM 77% Fort portal) Masaka) HAPPY ANNE KYOMUHANGI 92% KAGOYA JACKLINE (Magistrate G.1 77% (Magistrate G.1 Jinja) Nakawa) KAGGWA JOHN FRANCIS (CM Fort 92% LUBOWA DANIEL (CM Arua) 70% portal) JULIET H HATANGA (CM Mukono) 61% LUBOWA DANIEL (CM Arua) 91% PAMELA BOMUKAMA MUHWEZI 54% DAPHINE AYEBARE (Magistrate G.1 89% (Magistrate G.1 Mukono) Mbarara) NALUGYA MARIAM (CM Mukono) 43% SSAJJABI NOAH NORBERT (Magistrate 88% G.1 Nakawa) MUSHABE ALEX (CM Mengo) 86%
Table 33: Scores for Judges in the Supreme Court by Litigants Name LT Score BART KATUREEBE (Justice SC) 94% STELLA ARACH AMOKO (Justice SC) 85%
Table 34a: Scores for Judges in the Court of Appeal by Litigants Name LT Score REMMY KASULE (Justice COA) 84% ELIZABETH MUSOKE (Justice COA) 74% ALFONSE OWINY DOLLO (Justice COA) 73% KENNETH KAKURU (Justice COA) 73% HELLEN ABULU OBURA (Justice COA) 72% STEPHEN MUSOTA (Justice COA) 71% CHEBORION BARISHAKI (Justice COA) 69% NIGHT PERCY TUHAISE (Justice COA) 68% CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA (Justice COA) 66%
37 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 35: Scores for Judges in High Courts by Litigants Name LT Score Name LT Score YASIN NYANZI (Judge Criminal Division) 99% TADEO ASIIMWE (Judge Mbale) 83% WILSON KWESIGA (Judge Criminal 99% MUTONYI MARGARET (Judge Mukono) 83% Division) KEITIRIMA JOHN EUDES (Judge Land 82% JANE FRANCES ABODO (Judge 94% Division) Criminal Division) CORNELIA KAKOOZA SABIITI (Judge 79% ALEX AJIJI MACKAY (Judge – Lira) 93% Land Division) JANE ELIZABETH ALIVIDIZA (Judge 92% SUSAN OKALANY (Judge Mbale) 79% Commercial.) STEPHEN MUBIRU (Judge Gulu) 79% OLIVE MUKWAYA (Judge Family 90% Division) KETRAH KITARIISIBWA KATUNGUKA 79% MASALU MUSENE WILSON (Judge Fort 90% (Judge Family Division) Portal) ALEXANDRA NKONGE (Judge Land 79% MICHAEL ELUBU (Judge Jinja) 88% Division) DAMALIE LWANGA (Judge Land 79% DAVID WANGUTUSI (Judge 88% Division) Commercial.) JOYCE KAVUMA (Judge Mbarara) 79% RICHARD WEJULI WABWIRE (Judge 86% Commercial.) OJOK ANTHONY (Judge Arua) 78% GIDUDU LAWRENCE (Judge Anti- 86% HENRY KAWESA ISABIRYE (Judge Land 77% Corruption) Division) ANNA B MUGYENYI (Judge 86% DAVID MATOVU (Judge FD) 77% Commercial.) NABISINDE WINFRED (Judge Masaka) 76% FLAVIA SENOGA (Judge Criminal 84% Division) TIBULYA MARGRET (Judge Anti- 75% NAMUNDI GODFREY (Judge Family 83% Corruption) Division) EVA LUSWATA (Judge Jinja) 74% BILLY KAINAMURA (Judge Commercial.) 83%
Table 36: Scores for Magistrates by Litigants Name LT Score Name LT Score SSEJJEMBA DEOGRATIUS (CM Masaka 94% KAGOYA JACKLINE (G.1 Nakawa) 78% TWAKYIRE SAMUEL (CM Mbarara) 92% EPOBU DANIEL (G.1 Mbale) 77% HAPPY ANN KYOMUHANGI (G.I Jinja) 90% NANTAAWO AGNES (G.1 Mbale) 76% NAMAYANJA NAZIFAH (G.1 Fortportal) 89% JULIET HARTY HATANGA (CM 75% OSAURO JOHN PAUL (G.1 Mbale) 88% MUKONO) ALEX MUSHABE KAROCHO (CM 72% ELISHA ARINAITWE (G.1Fortportal) 88% Mengo) SSAJABI NORBERT (G.1 Nakawa) 87% MATENGA DAWA FRANCIS (G.1 Gulu) 71% JOHN KAGGWA FRANCIS (CM 86% BIWAGA SELSA (G.1 Gulu) 71% Fortportal) LORNA TUKUNDANE (G.1 Mengo) 70% CHEMONGES SATYA (G.2 Mbale) 86% HENRY KAWESA (Judge Land Division) 69% MUGEZI AMON (G.1 Jinja) 85% KINTU CAROL (G.1 Jinja) 68% AYEBALE DAPHINE (G.1 Mbarara) 85% BOMUKAMA PAMELA MUHWEZI (G.1 64% ASIIMWE ESTHER (G.1 Jinja) 82% Mukono) KARAMAGI PAMELA (G.1 Mbarara) 82% LUBOWA DANIEL (CM Arua) 61% SANYU MUKASA (G.1 Mbarara) 80% OKWONG STELLA PACULAT (G.1 56% KEDI PAUL (G.1 Arua) 80% Mukono) NALUGYA MARIAM (G.1 Mukono) 48% NDIWALANA YUNUSU (G.1 Gulu) 79%
38 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 37: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals – Judges for Supreme Court Name LT Score LP Score Combined Category
BART KATUREEBE (Justice SC) 94% 95% 94% above 90 STELLA ARACH AMOKO (Justice SC) 85% 96% 90% 80-90
Table 38a: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals – Judges for Court of Appeal Name LT Score LP Score Combined Category
REMMY KASULE (Justice COA) 84% 86% 85% 80-90 KENNETH KAKURU (Justice COA) 73% 76% 75% 70-79 ALFONSE OWINY DOLLO (Justice COA) 73% 75% 74% 70-79 HELLEN ABULU OBURA (Justice COA) 72% 73% 72% 70-79 CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA (Justice COA) 66% 64% 65% 60-69
Table 39: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals – Judges for High Courts Name LT Score LP Score Combined Category
WILSON KWESIGA (Judge Criminal Division) 99% 95% 97% above 90 ALEX AJIJI MACKAY (Judge – Lira) 93% 99% 96% above 90 YASIN NYANZI (Judge Criminal Division) 99% 93% 96% above 90 OLIVE MUKWAYA (Judge Family Division) 90% 94% 92% above 90 MASALU MUSENE WILSON (Judge Fortportal) 90% 95% 92% above 90 JANE FRANCES ABODO (Judge Criminal Division) 94% 91% 92% above 90 JANE ELIZABETH ALIVIDIZA (Judge Commercial.) 92% 88% 90% 80-90 MICHAEL ELUBU (Judge Jinja) 88% 91% 90% 80-90 FLAVIA SENOGA (Judge Criminal Division) 84% 93% 88% 80-90 ANNA B MUGYENYI (Judge Commercial.) 86% 91% 88% 80-90 KETRAH KITARIISIBWA KATUNGUKA (Judge Family Division) 79% 90% 85% 80-90 NAMUNDI GODFREY (Judge Family Division) 83% 86% 84% 80-90 GIDUDU LAWRENCE (Judge Anti-Corruption) 86% 82% 84% 80-90 BILLY KAINAMURA (Judge Commercial.) 83% 84% 84% 80-90 ASSIMWE TADEO (Judge Mbale) 83% 84% 83% 80-90 STEPHEN MUBIRU (Judge Gulu) 79% 87% 83% 80-90 DAVID MATOVU (Judge Family Division) 77% 87% 82% 80-90 DAVID WANGUTUSI (Judge Commercial.) 88% 76% 82% 80-90 JOYCE KAVUMA (Judge Mbarara) 79% 84% 81% 80-90 NABISINDE WINFRED (Judge Masaka) 76% 86% 81% 80-90 DAMALIE LWANGA (Judge Land) 79% 78% 79% 70-79 MUTONYI MARGRET (Judge Mukono) 83% 69% 76% 70-79 EVA LUSWATA (Judge Jinja) 74% 77% 76% 70-79 OJOK ANTHONY (Judge Arua) 78% 73% 75% 70-79 CORNELIA KAKOOZA SABIITI (Judge Land Division) 79% 69% 74% 70-79 TIBULYA MARGARET (Judge Anti-Corruption) 75% 72% 73% 70-79 SUZAN OKALANY (Judge Mbale) 79% 66% 73% 70-79
39 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 40: Combined Scores by both Litigants and Legal Professionals - Magistrates Name LT Score LP Score Combined Category
TWAKYIRE SAMUEL (CM Mbarara) 92% 99% 95% above 90 OSAURO JOHN PAUL (G.1 Mbale) 88% 97% 93% above 90 NAMAYANJA NAZIFAH (G.1 Fortportal) 89% 94% 92% above 90 HAPPY ANN KYOMUHANGI (G.1 Jinja) 90% 92% 91% above 90 ELISHA ARINAITWE (G.1 Fortportal) 88% 93% 90% 80-90 KEDI PAUL (G.1 Arua) 80% 99% 89% 80-90 SSAJABI NORBERT (G.1 Nakawa) 87% 88% 88% 80-90 AYEBALE DAPHINE (G.1 Mbarara) 85% 89% 87% 80-90 SSEJJEMBA DEOGRATIUS (CM Masaka) 94% 77% 85% 80-90 EPOBU DANIEL (CM Arua) 77% 91% 84% 80-90 MUGEZI AMON (G.1 Jinja) 85% 82% 84% 80-90 SANYU MUKASA (G.1 Mbarara) 80% 83% 82% 80-90 ASIIMWE ESTHER (G.1Jinja) 82% 80% 81% 80-90 ALEX MUSHABE KAROCHO (CM Mengo) 72% 86% 79% 70-79 KAGOYA JACKLINE (G.1 Nakawa) 78% 77% 77% 70-79 NANTAAWO AGNES (G.1 Mbale) 76% 78% 77% 70-79 LORNA TUKUNDANE (G.1 Mengo) 70% 83% 76% 70-79 JULIET HARTY HATANGA (CM Mukono) 75% 61% 68% 60-69 LUBOWA DANIEL (CM Arua) 61% 70% 65% 60-69 BOMUKAMA PAMELA MUHWEZI (G.1Mukono) 64% 54% 59% 50-59 NALUGYA MARIAM (G.1 Mukono) 48% 43% 46% below 50
40 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 1 [One] on one end to 5 (five) [Exemplary] at the extreme end for the following aspects: a) Judge / Magistrate explain reasons for delay b) Judge appear ready and prepared for the case c) Judge / Magistrate presides over with efficiency and capacity d) Judge give enough time and opportunity for litigants to explain their case e) Judge treat individuals without discrimination f) Judge assigns interpreters g) Judge take necessary measures to ensure respect for and the order of the Court h) Judge / Magistrate make an effort to describe the Court process to Court users i) Judge / Magistrate give reasonable time for witness evidence
3.4.1 Courtroom Observations per Court Overall, 331 observations were made by the data collection team. The most observations were made at the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Land Division. The fewest observations were made at Gulu High Court. This is mainly attributed to the fact that the same Judge or Magistrate was available during the data collection period.
Figure 11: Courtroom Observations per Court 30 24 24 24 25 23 22 20 20 18 16 16 14 15 13 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 9 9 10 6 6 6 5 5
0
HC Jinja HC
HC Gulu HC
HC Arua HC
Nakawa
CM Jinja CM
CM Gulu CM
CM Arua CM
HC Mbale HC
CM Mbale CM
HC Mukono HC
HC Masaka HC
CM Mukono CM
CM Masaka CM
HC Mbarara HC
Land Division Land
HC Kabarole HC
CM Mbarara CM
CM Kabarole CM
Family Division Family
Supreme Court Supreme
Criminal Division Criminal
Court of Appeal of Court Commercial Division Commercial Anti-Corruption Court Anti-Corruption (n=331)
3.4.2 Overall Observation Scores Overall, Judicial Officials scored exceptionally on aspects relating to ensuring there is respect and order in Court, presiding over with efficiency and capacity as well as being non-discriminative. On the other hand, Judicial Officials score significantly low on the aspect of explain reasons for delay or convening Court late. This was mostly the case for Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and
41 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Commercial Division. They were also scored relatively low on the aspect of assigning interpreters and making effort to describe the Court process to Court users.
Table 41: Overall Observation Scores
–
f
o
l
ourt
Tota
C
Corruption Corruption
egional
Division
Appeal -
Court Court
R
Commercial Commercial
High Court High Court
Land Division Land
Family Division Family
Supreme Court Supreme
Anti
Criminal Division Criminal
Chief Magistrate Chief Number of Observations 331 24 24 24 23 18 16 20 85 97 Judge / Magistrate explain reasons for 45% 17% 13% 79% 17% 56% 63% 60% 46% 48% delay Judge appear ready and prepared for the 93% 100% 96% 88% 100% 89% 75% 90% 95% 94% case Judge / Magistrate presides over with 93% 100% 92% 88% 100% 89% 81% 90% 93% 95% efficiency and capacity Judge give enough time and opportunity 90% 100% 96% 79% 100% 89% 81% 90% 86% 92% for Litigants to explain their case Judge treat individuals without 91% 96% 100% 83% 100% 94% 69% 75% 92% 92% discrimination Judge assigns interpreters 76% 29% 13% 58% 35% 94% 81% 90% 93% 97% Judge take necessary measures to ensure 94% 96% 96% 88% 100% 89% 81% 95% 94% 96% respect for and the order of the Court Judge / Magistrate make an effort to 72% 33% 0% 79% 100% 67% 69% 90% 76% 85% describe the Court process to Court users Judge / Magistrate give reasonable time 87% 10% 88% 70% 100% 94% 73% 100% 89% 92% for witness evidence
3.4.3 Observation Scores by Type of Court The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal scored a fair observation score between 60-69%. They were both scored the least on explaining reasons for delays. High Courts in Masaka, Mbarara and Kabarole also scored exceptionally (Over 90%). Nakawa Magistrates Court scored a perfect score of 100%. Magistrates Courts in Masaka and Mbarara also scored exceptionally (Over 90%).
42 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 42: Observation Scores for Higher Courts Court Overall Total Court of Appeal Supreme Court Observed 331 24 24 Total 82% 66% 65% Explains reasons for delay 45% 13% 17% Appears ready and prepared for the case 93% 96% 100% Presides over with efficiency and capacity 93% 92% 100% Gives enough time and opportunity for litigants to explain their case 90% 96% 100% Treats individuals without discrimination 91% 100% 96% Assigns interpreters 76% 13% 29% Takes necessary measures to ensure respect for and the order of the Court 94% 96% 96% Makes an effort to describe the Court process to Court users 72% 0% 33% Gives reasonable time for witness evidence 87% 88% 10%
Table 43: Observation Scores for High Courts
Court
-
Jinja
Anti Gulu
Land Arua
Total
Court
Mbale Family
Division Division Division
Overall Overall
Mukono
Masaka
Criminal Criminal
l Division
Mbarara
Kabarole
Corruption Corruption
Commercia
Observed 331 11 11 14 20 16 18 23 9 24 6 5 13 16 Total 82% 95% 93% 90% 87% 86% 85% 84% 80% 79% 76% 76% 75% 75% Explains reasons for delay 45% 82% 36% 50% 60% 75% 56% 17% 11% 79% 33% 40% 15% 63% Appears ready and prepared for the case 93% 100% 100% 100% 90% 94% 89% 100% 89% 88% 83% 80% 100% 75% Presides over with efficiency and capacity 93% 100% 100% 100% 90% 94% 89% 100% 89% 88% 67% 80% 92% 81% Gives enough time and opportunity for 90% 100% 100% 100% 90% 75% 89% 100% 89% 79% 67% 80% 69% 81% litigants to explain their case Treats individuals without discrimination 91% 100% 100% 79% 75% 88% 94% 100% 89% 83% 100% 80% 100% 69% Assigns interpreters 76% 100% 100% 100% 90% 81% 94% 35% 89% 58% 100% 80% 92% 81% Takes necessary measures to ensure respect 94% 100% 100% 100% 95% 88% 89% 100% 89% 88% 100% 80% 92% 81% for and the order of the Court Makes an effort to describe the Court 72% 73% 100% 86% 90% 81% 67% 100% 89% 79% 67% 80% 38% 69% process to Court users Gives reasonable time for witness evidence 87% 100% 100% 93% 100% 94% 94% 100% 89% 70% 67% 80% 77% 73%
43 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 44: Observation Scores for Chief Magistrates Courts
Court
Jinja
Gulu
Arua
Total
Mbale
Overall
Mukono
Masaka
Nakawa
Mbarara
Kabarole Observed 331 22 12 6 6 10 11 9 10 11 Total 82% 100% 98% 91% 89% 88% 84% 79% 76% 72% Explains reasons for delay 45% 100% 83% 17% 17% 0% 27% 33% 50% 18% Appears ready and prepared for the case 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 89% 80% 82% Presides over with efficiency and capacity 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 89% 80% 91% Gives enough time and opportunity for litigants to 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 82% 89% 80% 73% explain their case Treats individuals without discrimination 91% 100% 100% 100% 83% 100% 73% 89% 80% 91% Assigns interpreters 76% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 91% Takes necessary measures to ensure respect for and the 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 80% 91% order of the Court Makes an effort to describe the Court process to Court 72% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 44% 80% 27% users Gives reasonable time for witness evidence 87% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 82% 89% 70% 82%
44 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
3.4.4 Observation Scores for Judges and Magistrates
Table 45: Observation Scores for Individual Judges – Supreme Court Ranking Name Scores (%) Court 2 HON CHIEF JUSTICE BART KATUREEBE 69% Supreme Court NB: Only 1 Judge was observed 3 or more times at the Supreme Court
Table 46a: Observation Scores for Individual Judges – Court of Appeal Ranking Name Scores (%) Court 1 HON LADY JUSTICE ELIZABETH MUSOKE 71% Court of Appeal 3 HON JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU 60% Court of Appeal NB: Only 1 Judge was observed 3 or more times at the Court of Appeal
Table 47: Aggregated Observed Performances of Judges – Higher Courts Performance Score Number scored (n=3) Exceptional +90 Very good 80 - 90 Good 70 - 79 1 Fair 60 - 69 2 Low 50 - 59 Poor Below 50 NB: Only Judges observed 3 or more times included
Table 48: Observation Scores for Individual Judges – High Courts Ranking Name Scores (%) Court 1 DAMALIE LWANGA 100% Land Division 2 MICHAEL ELUBU 97% Jinja High Court 3 JOYCE KAVUMA 96% Mbarara High Court 4 MASALU MUSENE 96% Kabarole High Court
Table 49: Aggregated Observed Performances of Judges – Hight Courts Performance Score Number scored (n=23) Exceptional +90 7 Very good 80 - 90 10 Good 70 - 79 3 Fair 60 - 69 2 Low 50 - 59 Poor Below 50 1 NB: Only Judges observed 3 or more times included
Table 50: Observation Scores for Individual Magistrates Ranking Name Scores (%) Court 1 SSAJABBI NOAH 100% G.1 Nakawa 2 NABASA RUTH 100% G.1 Mbale 3 MUJUNI PAUL 100% G.1 Mbarara 4 AGNES ALUM 100% CM Nakawa 5 HAPPY ANNE KYOMUHANGI 100% G.1 Jinja 6 JULIET HARTY HATANGA 96% CM Mukono
Table 51: Aggregated Observed Performances of Magistrates
45 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Performance Score Number scored (n=14) Exceptional +90 5 Very good 80 - 90 8 Good 70 - 79 1 Fair 60 - 69 Low 50 - 59 Poor Below 50 NB: Only Magistrates observed 3 or more times included
Table 52: Observation Scores for Judges – Higher Courts Name Observations Total ELIZABETH MUSOKE (Justice COA) 7 71% BART KATUREEBE (Justice SC) 12 69% KENNETH KAKURU (Justice COA) 5 60%
Table 53: Observation Scores for Judges - High Courts Name Observations Total DAMALIE LWANGA (Judge Land Division) 4 100% MICHAEL ELUBU (Judge Jinja) 4 97% JOYCE KAVUMA (Judge Mbarara) 6 96% MASALU MUSENE (Judge Fortportal) 6 96% ZEIJA FLAVIAN (Judge Mbarara) 4 92% GIDUDU LAWRENCE (Judge Anti-Corruption) 12 91% KETRAH KITARIISIBWA KATUNGUKA (Judge Family Division) 7 89% NAMUNDI GODFREY (Judge Family Division) 6 89% KEITIRIMA EUDES JOHN (Judge Land Division) 14 88% NABISINDE N WINFRED (Judge Masaka) 10 88% JANE FRANCES ABODO (Judge Criminal Division) 7 87% JANE ELIZABETH ALIVIDZA (Judge Commercial.) 7 86% TIBULYA MARGARET (Judge Anti-Corruption) 12 85% SUSAN OKALANY (Judge Mbale) 12 84% FLAVIA SENOGA (Judge Criminal Division) 4 83% RICHARD WEJULI (Judge Comm.) 3 81% ANNA B MUGENYI (Judge Commercial Division.) 7 79% ANTHONY OJOK (Judge Arua) 7 76% ASSIMWE TADEO (Judge Mbale) 7 76% EVA LUSWATA (Judge Jinja) 4 69% STEPHEN MUBIRU (Judge Gulu) 4 69% DAVID MATOVU (Judge Family Division) 4 25%
46 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Table 54: Observation Scores for Magistrates Name Observations Total SSAJABBI NOAH (G.1 Nakawa) 7 100% MUJUNI PAUL (G.1 Mbarara) 4 100% ALUM AGNES (CM Nakawa) 3 100% HAPPY ANN KYOMUHANGI (G.1 Jinja) 3 100% JULIET HARTY HATANGA (CM Mukono) 3 96% DEOGRATIUS SSEJJEMBA (CM Masaka) 7 89% ARINAITWE ELISHA (G.1 Fortportal) 5 89% AMON MUGEZI (G.1 Jinja) 4 89% KAGGWA JOHN FRANCIS (G.1 Fortportal) 3 89% NAMAYANJA NAZIPHA (G.1 Fortportal) 3 89% OSAURO JOHN PAUL (G.1 Mbale) 3 89% BIWAGA SELSA (G.1 Gulu) 4 86% KEDI PAUL (G.1 Arua) 7 83% EPOBU DANIEL (CM Arua) 3 70%
47 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
3.5 Evaluation of the Court Performance Through the Lenses of the Judgments Delivered 2018
In addition to the parameters used to score the effectiveness and efficiency 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 Abdullah V. State (1995) 5 NWLR 125, where the Court stated:
“The writing of a judgment is an art. In carrying out this art, although each judge is free to follow his own style to produce a good judgment, 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 judgment, the underlying factor is fairness to the parties to avoid doing anything that would result in any miscarriage of justice”.
3.5.1 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 drawing from the common law jurisprudence of what amounts to a good judgment, the judgments were scored against the following criteria:
Criteria Score A The Justice’s grasp of the facts or narration of the facts (mastery of the (20 points) facts) that was adduced at the trial B The use of the law applicable, and precedent (20 points) C Whether the judgment/Ruling advances the law, that is, whether it has (20 points) jurisprudential value 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 (20 points) that can be understood even by an ordinary person Total 100
In undertaking the above score, the evaluation also took 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 would be summed out of 100 points. A total of 89 Judgments were reviewed and scored. These included19 under the Supreme Court, 35 under the Court of Appeal and 38 under the High Courts.
The team of legal experts comprised of; Prof. Ssempebwa Fredrick, Dr. Henry Onoria, Mr. Phillip Karugaba, Mr. Francis Gimara, Mr. Rukundo Solomon, Ms. Faith Atoo, Ms. Doreen Kansiime, H/W Daniel Bwambale, and Ms. Sylivia Namawejje.
48 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
3.5.2 SUPREME COURT
CIVIL APPEALS DECISIONS REVIEWED AND SCORED
NO. PARTIES AND CITATIONS TOTAL SCORE Hwang Sung Limited V M&D Timber Merchants & Transporters Civil Appeal No. 2 1 of 2018. Coram: Butera JSC, Mwangusya JSC, Mwondha JSC, Tumwesigye JSC, 76 Nshimye JSC Attorney General V Gladys Nakibuule Kiseka – Constn Appeal 02/2016. Coram: 2 Tibatemwa JSC, Kisakye JSC 72 Tushabe Chris v Cooperative Bank Limited (In Receivership) Civil Appeal No.8 of 3 2018. Coram: Nshimye JSC 70 Galleria in Africa V Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Civil Appeal 4 No.08 of 2017. Coram: Mwondha JSC 62 Betuco (U) Ltd & Anor V Barclays Bank Ltd & ORS Civil Appeal 01 of 2017. 5 Coram: Arach JSC, Mwangusya JSC, Opio JSC, Butera JSC 62 Nyeko Smith & Anor V Attorney General Civil Appeal No.1/2018. Tumwesigye 6 JSC, Kisaakye JSC, Arach JSC, Opio JSC, Tibatemwa JSC 62 Mubeezi & Ors V Kasule Civil Appeal 10 of 2017. Coram: Arach JSC, Mwangusya 7 JSC, Opio JSC, Mwonda JSC, Tibatemwa JSC 56
CRIMINAL APPEALS
NO. PARTIES AND CITATIONS TOTAL SCORE Mumbere Julius V Uganda Cr. Appeal 15 of 2014. Tumwesgye JSC / 1 Mwondha JSC Dissenting 86 2 Tito Buhingiro V Uganda – Cr. Appeal 08 of 2014. Coram: ????? 78 3 Ntambale V Uganda Civil Appeal 34 of 2015 Coram: ??? 77 Sekamya Blasio V Uganda Cr. Appeal 24 0f 2014. Coram: Katureebe JSC, 4 Kisaakye JSC, Arach Amoko JSC, Opio Aweri JSC, Tibatemwa JSC 65 Bakubye Muzamuri & Anor V Uganda Cr. Appeal 56 of 2015. Coram: 5 Katureebe JSC, Arach JSC, Mwangusya JSC, Opio Aweri JSC, Tibatemwa 64 JSC Baluku Samuel & Anor V Uganda Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2014. Coram: 6 Mwondha JSC, Mugamba JSC, Butera JSC, Nshimye JSC, Tumwesigye JSC 63 Abaasa Johnson & Anor V Uganda Cr. Appeal No. Coram: Mwangusya JSC, 7 Tibatewa JSC, Kisakye JSC, MugambaJSC, Tumwesigye JSC 57 Abele V Uganda Crim. Appeal 66 of 2016. Coram: Katureebe JSC, Arach 8 Amoko JSC, Mwondha JSC, Butera JSC, Nshimye JSC 54 Bogere Asiimwe Moses & Arinaitwe V Uganda Cr. Appeal No.39 of 2010. 9 Coram: Arach Amoko JSC, Mwangusya JSC, Butera JSC, Tumwesigye JSC 51 Ndomugenyi Patrick v Uganda Crim Appeal 57 of 2016. Coram: Mwondha 10 JSC, Opio JSC, Mwondha JSC, Butera JSC, Nshimye JSC 50
49 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Wamutaba Nene Jamiru V Uganda – Cr. App 74 of 2007. Mwangusya JSC, 11 Opio JSC, Mugamba JSC, Butera JSC, Tumwesigye JSC 48 Tukamuhebwa David Junior V Uganda Cr. Appeal 59 of 2010. Coram: 12 Mwangusya JSC, Opio JSC, Mwondha JSC, Butera JSC, Nshimye JSC 30
Comments from the Review Team 1) A total of 28 copies of judgments were reviewed but for purposes of the Scorecard we focussed on substantive judgments and not rulings. We evaluated 25 judgments, 17 of which 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, and it is in only 3 decisions that individual Justices wrote opinions. The rest were judgments of the Court 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 [See Judgment Details Annexed]:
— Hwan Sung Limited vs M and D Timber Merchants and Transporters Civ App. 02 of 2018 — Mumbere Julius vs Uganda Cr. App. 15 of 2014 — Attorney General vs. Gladys Nakibuule Kisekka, Constitutional Appeal 02 of 2016
Recommendations 1) The Supreme Court Justices should always strive to write individual judgments. Each Judge providing the reasons for judgment gives clarity to the thoughts of a particular Judge. The gist of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues.
This point is well illustrated in the case of Ntambala Fred vs Uganda Cr. App. 34 of 2015 - In the judgment, Justice Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza wrote a judgment of her own in order to emphasise that the historical stance of courts, that a court must warn itself of a danger in cases where there is uncorroborated evidence of a victim of a sexual offence, is discriminatory against women. The Justice reiterated was that the cautionary rule is not gender sensitive, treats women as unreliable, and is therefore discriminative.
Similarly, in the case of Attorney General vs Gladys Nakibuule Kisekka Constitutional Appeal 02 of 2016, Kisaakye JSC wrote a dissenting Judgment that raises points for debate. In her opinion there are circumstances where the protection under immunity is absolute. In such cases, a Judicial Officer’s act must not be questioned even through disciplinary proceedings. The Respondent’s apparently fell within this category. A challenge against a judicial act should arise only in those instances of obvious or wanton disregard of judicial duties, or, abuse of office. From her dissenting Judgment, the entry point for claiming protection and the role of the JSC needs further debate.
2) Being the precedent setting Court, the Supreme Court should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid uncertainty in lower courts, as it is the highest court in the land. For example, in Galleria in Africa Limited vs Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited Civil Appeal 08 of 2017, the issue was whether a contract had been made in accordance with the PPDA law and the Regulations made thereunder. The Court did not adequately analyse the effect of part- performance of the terms, which is contrary to the letter of the law that formation of the contract
50 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
ought to have complied with the statutory procedures This is not to say that the omission would have affected the outcome, but the shortcoming of not resolving fully this issue, means that the Court may still be called to resolve the effect of part-performance in such situations in a future matter.
Award for Best Performing Justice of Supreme Court In terms of the number and quality of judgments, the deserving award is to the Lady Justice Ekirukubinza- Tibatemwa Lydia. Her judgments are properly articulated in terms of law and precedent and several of these judgments are of great jurisprudential value and reportable.
3.5.3 COURT OF APPEAL
TOTAL NO. PARTIES AND CITATIONS SCORE 1 Stanbic Bank V Muddu Awulira CACA No. 67 of 2018. Coram: Kakuru JA 92 Deluxe Enterprises V Uganda Leasing CACA No. 13 of 2004. Coram: Owiny-Dollo 2 JA, Egonda Ntende JA, Obura (Egonda- Ntende JA) 92 Security 2000 V Cumberland CACA No. 914 of 2014. Coram: Kakuru JA, 3 92 Kiryabwire JA, Madrama JA Bongole V Nakiwala CACA No. 76 of 2015. Coram: Kiryabwire JA, Barishaki JA, 4 91 Obura JA Okwi V Kirunda CACA No. 35 of 2008. Coram: Owiny-Dollo JA, Egonda Ntende 5 91 JA, Obura JA Katureebe V Uganda Revenue Authority CACA No.55 of 2012. Coram: Kakuru JA, 6 Kiryabwire JA, Madrama JA 91 Basudde V Nsabwa CACA No. 288 of 2016. Coram: Kakuru JA, Kasule JA, Obura 7 91 JA 8 Nyandusi V Oyuko CACA No.32 of 2018. Coram: Musota JA 90 SBI International V C of CACA No.194 of 2014. Coram: Kasule JA, Kakuru JA, 9 84 Obura JA Muyitira Sande v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 126/2013 [2018] UGCA 49. Coram: 10 Egonda-Ntende JA, Obura JA & Musota JA 84 Nalubega V Muwanga CACA No. 32 of 2018. Coram: Bossa JA, Kakuru JA, 11 83 Kiryabwire JA Tumuramye V Tushemerire CACA No. 95 of 2015. Coram: Bossa JA, Kakuru JA, 12 Egonda – Ntende JA 82 Bwiza V Kadama CACA No. 35 of 2011. Coram: Kakuru JA, Egonda – Ntende JA, 13 82 Kasule JA 14 Car & General V AFS Construction CACA No. 371 of 2018. Coram: Musota JA 82 Binwomukama V Uganda Wildlife Authoeity CACA No.01 of 2014. Coram: Kasule 15 JA, Kakuru JA, Kiryabwire JA 82 16 Kiyaga V Segujja CACA 37 of 2010. Coram: Kaule JA, Kakuru JA , Kiryabwire JA 82 Kazooba Godfrey & Another v Uganda, Crim Appeal Nos 38 & 47/2012 [2018] 17 82 UGCA 67. Coram: Egonda-Ntende JA, Obura JA & Musota JA Katureebe John (alias Kongo) v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 84/2005 [2018] UGCA 18 81 55. Coram: Egonda-Ntende JA, Obura JA & Musota JA Kizito Enock v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 228/2012 [2018] UGCA 53. Coram: 19 Egonda-Ntende JA, Obura JA & Musota JA 80
51 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
TOTAL NO. PARTIES AND CITATIONS SCORE Kyambadde Francis & Another v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 293/2014 [2018] 20 UGCA 51. Coram: Egonda-Ntende JA, Obura JA & Musota JA 80 Miriyo Kwemalamala & Another v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 11/2011 [2018] 21 UGCA 50. Coram: Egonda-Ntende JA, Obura JA & Musota JA 80 Mukuye Samuel & Another v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 232/2012 [2018] UGCA 22 80 68. Coram: Egonda-Ntende JA, Obura JA & Musota JA Ssengendo V Mukoni CACA No.53 of 2006. Coram: Kakuru JA, Kirywabwire JA, 23 79 Muhanguzi JA Muntuwoka V Uganda Telecom CACA No. 69 of 2011. Coram: Owiny- Dollo JA, 24 Egonda- Ntende JA, Obura JA 78 Bashasha Sherif v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 123/2011 [2018] UGCA 63. Coram: 25 Egonda- Ntende JA, Obura JA, Musota JA 78 Balikuddembe Alex v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 105/2012 [2018] UGCA 65. 26 Coram:Egonde- Ntenda JA, Obura JA, Musota JA 76 Kalyamagwa Samuel v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 189/2012 [2018] UGCA 56. 27 Coram: Egonda- Ntende JA, Obura JA, MusotaJA 75 Baingana Godfrey & Others v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 20/2013 [2018] UGCA 28 66 (Uganda CA). Coram: Egonda- Ntenda JA, Obura JA, Musota JA 74 Batengeya Matia v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 145/2012 [2018] UGCA 64. Coram: 29 74 Egonda- Ntende JA, Obura JA, Musota JA Peter Mulira V Mitchel Cotts CACA No.94 of 2004. Coram: Egonda Ntende JA, 30 72 Kasule JA, Kakuru JA Mwesige Adolf & 2 Others v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 76/2014 [2018] UGCA 9. 31 72 Coram: Kakuru JA, Egonda-Ntende JA & Musoke JA Buhinda Joseph v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 129/2012 [2018] UGCA 63 Coram: 32 69 Egonda- Ntende JA, Obura JA, Musota JA 33 Kwagala Gonza v Uganda, Crim Appln No 89/2017 [2018] UGCA 15 68 Kinalwa V Kamulegeya CACA No. 217 of 2013. Coram: Kavuma JA, Bossa JA, 34 64 Egonda - Ntende JA Atugonza Tony (alias Akiki) & Others v Uganda, Crim Appeal No 233/2012 [2018] 35 UGCA 7. Coram: Kakuru JA, Egonda- Ntende JA, Musoke JA 64
General Comments 1. Just like with the Supreme Court, the majority of the decisions on appeal reviewed, the were cast as judgments of the Court—in that sense, there were no individual judgments by the coram/panel of the appellate Court justices. However, it is also evident, given the personal style of certain justices, especially Egonda-Ntende, JA (who numbers the paragraphs of judgments) that one can ascribe the writing of the judgment to a particular Justice of Appeal. In that regard, the writing of the paragraphed judgments in several decisions can certainly be attributed to Egonda-Ntende, JA.
2. There are instances of the Criminal Appeals in Buhinda Joseph v Uganda, Crim Appeal No. 129/2012 [2018] UGCA 63; Katureebe John (alias Kongo) v Uganda, Crim Appeal No. 174/2012 [2018] UGCA 55 and Ssettuba William v Uganda, Crim Appeal No. 186/2013 [2018] UGCA 39 in which one Justice did not sign [the] judgment(s) as they did not agree with it [the majority decision]”. However, the learned Justice did not append any dissenting
52 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
opinions or declarations as to why he disagreed with his two colleagues. This leaves one pondering the premise in law (or legal reasoning) for the disagreement.
3. There was very good use of applicable law and precedent (case-law) in the Criminal Appeals (and applications) handled during 2018. Of note, this use was evident in:
(a) Reliance on precedent of the Supreme Court and its own (as Court of Appeal). (b) Reference to substantive law (especially on criminal offences) as well as procedural law (e.g. Judicature Act, Court of Appeal rules, etc.) (c) Review of evidence in terms of, e.g. circumstantial evidence, identification evidence. (d) Appraisal of its duty as first appellate Court and its power to interfere with sentencing discretion of trial judge/Court. (e) Addressing a common ground of appeal of a trial judge/Court not taking into account the period spent on remand in imposing a sentence in terms of article 23(8) of the 1995 Constitution - the Court of Appeal addressed this in light of (and, in effect, resolved) the various decisions of the Supreme Court, dating from 2000 to 2013.
However, when the Appellate Court was tasked with reviewing only the sentence imposed by the trial judge, there was limited reliance on the legal regime that exists - the Sentencing Guidelines (in Legal Notice No 8/2013) had been in place for 5 years by 2018 and yet there are limited instances in which the panel(s) refers to them, with an instance being Katureebe John (alias Kongo) v Uganda, Crim Appeal No. 84/2005 [2018] UGCA 55.
4. With the sample of the criminal matter(s), we were able to unpack whether the judicial workload is evenly distributed in 2018. Apart from the three (3) justices on special assignments, the involvement of the other eleven (11) justices of appeal is as follows;
Justice of Court of Appeal Criminal Appeals Hon. Justice Alphonse Owiny-Dollo, DCJ — Panel in criminal appeals session in Masaka (with Hon. Justice JFS Egonda Ntende, JA Obura, JA and Musota, JA) — Panel in criminal appeals session in Fort Portal (with Kakuru, JA and Musoke, JA) Hon. Justice Kenneth Kakuru, JA — Panel in criminal appeals session in Fort Portal (with Egonda-Ntende, JA and Musoke, JA) Hon. Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, JA Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke, JA — Panel in criminal appeals session in Fort Portal (with Kakuru, JA and Egonda-Ntende, JA) Hon Lady Justice Hellen Obura, JA — Panel in criminal appeals session in Masaka (with Egonda-Ntende, JA and Musota, JA) Hon. Justice Cheborion Barishaki, JA Hon. Justice Christopher Madrama, JA — Heard two applications on bail pending appeal (as single judge) Hon. Justice Percy N Tuhaise, JA — Panel in criminal appeals session in Masaka (with Hon. Justice Stephen Musota, JA Obura, JA and Musota, JA)
53 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
— Heard two applications on bail pending appeal (as single judge) Hon. Justice Ezekiel Muhanguzi, JA
Hon. Justice Simon Byabakama, JA Special assignment —Chairman, Electoral Commission Hon. Lady Justice Solomy Bossa, JA Special assignment —Judge, International Criminal Court Hon. Lady Justice Catherine Special assignment Bamugemereire, JA —Chairperson, Land Commission
5. Notably, the Deputy Chief Justice as well as other justices of the Court of Appeal (as panels of the Constitutional Court) were involved in Constitutional petitions (and references) in 2018 as follows—
Kaitale Julius & 3 Others Uganda, — Hon. Lady Justice Solomy Bossa, JA Const. Reference No 11/2014 [2018] — Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke, JA UGCC 1* — Hon. Justice Cheborion Barishaki, JA — Hon. Lady Justice Catherine Bamugemereire, JA Twinobusingye v Attorney General, Const. Reference No 27/2018 [2018] — Hon. Justice Kenneth Kakuru, JA (single judge) UGCC 2 Basajabalaba & Another v Attorney — Hon. Justice Remmy Kasule, JA General, Const. Petition No 12/2013 — Hon. Lady Justice Solomy Bossa, JA [2018] UGCC 3** Male Mabirizi & Others v Attorney — Hon. Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, DCJ General, Petition Nos 49/2017, — Hon. Justice Remmy Kasule, JA 3/2018, 5/2018, 10/2018 & — Hon. Justice Kenneth Kakuru, JA 13/2018) [2018] UGCC 4 — Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke, JA — Hon. Justice Cheborion Barishaki, JA — * The other justice on the panel was Hon. Justice SBK Kavuma, DCJ (as he was then). — **The other justices on the panel were Hon. Justice SBK Kavuma, DCJ (as he was then), Hon. Justice Eldad Mwangusya, JA (as he was then) and Hon. Justice Ruby Aweri Opio, JA (as he was then).
Recommendation 1) Of importance in this respect is the necessity to ensure that justices of the Court of Appeal (and, in that regard, the other Courts, the High Court and Supreme Court) share the judicial workload in an equitable manner. In effect, there is need for the empanelling of justices of appeal to reflect a fair distribution of the workload, bearing in mind the nature and breadth of the cases assigned. The importance of a case-weighting system for the Judiciary cannot be over-stated.14/08/2019
2) There were four (4) judgments rendered by individual judges—these were in respect of Criminal Applications for grant of bail pending appeal. These were by Musota, JA and Madrama, JA, each dealing with two (2) applications. Notably, although the applications were all grounded on “advanced age” as the basis, Musota, JA granted both his applications while Madrama, JA declined in both (although understandably in the latter
54 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
case, the applicants had been convicted of capital offences). The contradiction over similar factors speak to the need for the development of guidelines.
Award for Best Performing Justice of Court of Appeal The choice of the best deserving Justice in the Court of Appeal during 2018, the Justice is Egonda- Ntende, JA for the following reasons; firstly, he was on the panels of the criminal sessions in both Fort Portal and Masaka and, secondly, given his easily identifiable style of judgment-writing, the judgments that can attributed as authored by him were properly articulated in terms of law and precedent and several of these judgments are of great jurisprudential value and reportable.
3.5.4 HIGH COURT DIVISION
TOTAL NO. PARTIES AND CITATIONS COURT SCORE Arua Kubala Park Operators V Arua Municipal Council. HCMC 1 98 Arua No. 0003 of 2016 2 Lanyero Ketty v Okene Richard HCCA 29 of 2018 96 Gulu 3 Waiga Jacintus V Andima Jackson. HCCA No. 0009 of 2015 95 Arua 4 Ondoma Samuel V Kana Richard. HCMC 0016 of 2018 95 Arua 5 Isadru Vicky v Perina Aroma HCCA 33 of 2014 94 Arua Mitanda Bakale Masso David Vs Uganda Revenue Authority 6 94 Commercial Misc. Application No. 1424 Of 2017 7 Ibaya Taratizio v Tarakpe Faustina HCCA No.14 of 2015 93 Arua 8 Ogwang Donasiano v Regina Okot. HCCA 21 of 2016 90 Gulu 9 Kwaiga Swadik v Amba Siraj HCCA 29 of 2016 90 Arua Infinity Telecom Uganda Limited V Orange Uganda Limited 10 89 Commercial HCMA 3 of 2017 Pinnacle Finance Limited Vs Kaddu Godfrey Hccs No. 94 Of 11 89 Commercial 2015 Awongo V The Board of Governors of Koboko Sec. School. 12 88 Arua HCMC 0078 of 2017 13 Okumu Anthony v Odonga Alfred HCCA 22 of 2016 88 Gulu In Re Musinguzi Davis Alias Elijah David Harper (Adoption Cause 14 87 Arua No.0001 of 2018) Cyril Adiga Nakari v Sabino Ocan Odoki HCCS No. 0002 od 15 86 Arua 2017 16 Uganda V Ngaswireki Paul. HCCrA 3 of 2017 85 Mukono 17 Mmaks Advocates Versus Uganda Muslim Supreme Council 85 Commercial Vivo Energy (U) Ltd v Shire Petroluem Company HCCS No. 0008 18 83 Arua of 2016 Kyotera Victoria Fishnets Limited Vs The Commissioner General, 19 Uganda Revenue Authority And Uganda Revenue Authority Civil 82 Commercial Suit No. 224 Of 2014 Kyaninga Royal Cottages Limited V Kyaninga Limited. HCMA 20 80 Commercial No. 551 of 2018 Wasike Stephen Mugeni V Aggrey Awori Siryoyi. HCT-04-CR- 21 80 Mbale MA-0114-2010 22 Labejja Ticiyano v Olanya Bosco HCCA No.28 of 2018 80 Gulu
55 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
TOTAL NO. PARTIES AND CITATIONS COURT SCORE 23 Mboizi Dison V Dauli David Robert. HCT-04-CV-MA-0080-2014 79 Mbale 24 Miraj Barot V Salvation Army Civil Suit No. 713 of 2015 79 Commercial Parabot Breweries Ltd (In Receivership) Vs Standard Chartered 25 Bank(U) Ltd And David Mpanga Misc. Application No. 208 Of 78 Commercial 2018-06-13 Bsk International School Ltd V Micheal Katungye HCMA 1245 of 26 76 Commercial 2017 27 Orient Bank Limited Vs Kampala International University 75 Commercial Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited Vs Uchumi Supermarkets 28 74 Commercial Limited, 29 Uzia Bweya v Baghenzi Zimonia HCCA 65 of 2017 70 Land Excel Construction Limited V GCC Service Limited. HCMA 1245 30 68 Commercial of 2017 31 Emmanuel Kato Vs Crane Bank Limited 65 Commercial Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Limited Vs Habib Oil And 4 32 Others Miscellaneous Application No. 161 Of 2018 64 Commercial Elizabeth Nakayiwa And 2 Others Vs The Attorney General Civil 33 64 Commercial Suit No. 549 Of 2013 Sheila Butsya Lubega Vs Percy Paul Lubega And Centenary Rural 34 Development Bank Ltd Hct-00-Cc-Cs-292-2016 54 Commercial Rm Market Links (U) Ltd And 3 Others Vs Ugafin (U) Ltd Misc. App 35 50 Commercial No. 334 Of 419 36 Syan Cars Ltd Vs Betungura Amos Hccs No. 541 Of 2014 50 Commercial Icco Cooperation Uganda Vs Trivision Uganda Limited 37 50 Commercial Miscellaneous Application No 64 Of 2018 38 Claire Atino v Akright Projects Limited HCCS 0062 of 2010 40 Land 39 Drasika v Jurua Civil Revision 0002 of 2017 Arua 40 Samuel Abbo Vs Cimeel Engineering Ltd Commercial
General Comments 1. Significant delay in giving judgments. We noted some cases which were concluded in 2014 and judgment was delivered in 2018.
2. It was difficult to obtain judgments made by certain circuits of the High Court and Judges. Some judgments are not publicly available and even attempts to obtain them have not been successful. 3. Some judgments are poorly written. They don’t lay down a background that a lay person can follow. In some instances, they are too brief and only someone with a background knowledge in law can properly understand it. 4. Grammatical errors and the citation errors. In one case a Judge cited “Sango Bay Estates Ltd and others v. Dresdner Bank [1992] E. A. 17 by the East African Court of Appeal” yet It should be “[1971] EA 17”.
Recommendations 1) The Principal Judge should request all the Judges to have their judgments available to the stakeholders not more than two weeks from delivery.
56 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
2) Refresher training on standardisation of judgments must be undertaken to improve the quality of judgments.
Award for Best Performing Judge of High Court The choice of the best deserving Judge in the High Court is Justice is Mubiru Stephen, * for the following reasons; firstly, he has ensured that all his judgments are publicly accessible, secondly he has a scholarly attention to detail in his analysis of issues and, thirdly, he has been able to consistently deliver the judgments within the time required by the regulations.
57 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 noted that whereas many Judicial staff respond to the needs of those that want their services, some Judicial staff lack passion for the work. It was reported that they are hard to access and most times one has to part with money to get their attention. It was further reported that Judicial Officials are often unavailable. It was notably highlighted that many Judicial Officials are not aware of the needs of People With Disabilities (PWDs).
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. In addition, accessing lawyers was reported as a barrier since most people cannot afford them. It was highlighted that there is few pro bono lawyers and most lawyers do not offer services for free unless funded by government. Some of the respondents noted that whereas Court fees are reasonable, bribes which are usually demanded through Clerks are outrageous.
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 discriminative application of the law to the rich and the poor – most cases being in favour of the rich.
Commitment to Job Performance 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, unnecessary case adjournments. It was also reported that there are several scenarios when police case files are not brought to Court.
Timeliness in Handling and Completion of Cases 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 many cases are adjourned unnecessarily, without giving reasons in some instances. It was reported that small/petty cases/offences are never completed because of backlog leaving accused persons on pre-trial remand up to 3-6 months.
Transparency of the Judicial Staff There was almost universal agreement among members of civil society about the lack of transparency and integrity among most Judicial officials. It was reported that files are manipulated by Court Clerks or go missing while at Court or are hidden. It was reported that there is a lot of soliciting for bribes through clerks. This was referred to as being “a culture of judicial staff to accept bribes”. Some felt it is because of low pay and poor working conditions.
58 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Accessibility of Courts There were mixed views on accessibility of courts for the general public. Some members of the civil society felt that most distances are reasonable, but people are afraid of courts due to the widespread perception that they will be arrested. On the other hand, others felt that accessibility 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 such as the Refugees. Notably, it was reported that Courts are not easily accessible for PWDs as there are no provisions for them such as ramps or Court documentation for the blind.
Major Challenges Affecting Reputation of the Judicial Staff and System in Uganda The following were highlighted as the major challenges affecting the reputation of the judicial staff and system in Uganda; a) Rampant corruption in the Judiciary b) Lack of capacity to handle some sensitive cases c) High Case backlog d) Poor monitoring and supervision of judicial staff e) There is poor relations between the Judiciary and the community f) Low public confidence in the judicial system and staff g) Lack of awareness among the general public about the judicial system h) Lack of enough interpreters. i) Lack of facilities and services for PWDs.
Recommendations The following was suggested as recommendations to improve the reputation and service provision of the Judiciary in the community; o Capacity building by introducing refresher courses for Judicial Officers o Increase staffing of the Judiciary o Frequently transfer Clerks and other support staff o Improve remuneration o Monitoring and evaluation of judicial staff o Installing cameras in all corners of Court premises
59 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation
4.1 Conclusions The assessment is not without limitations. Though representative, the assessment did not cover all Courts in Uganda. Not all Judges and Magistrates were scored by both the Legal Professionals and Litigants. The overall scores presented in the report were computed only among Judicial Officials that were scored by both groups. Not all Judges and Magistrates were observed. The number of times observed also varied for each Judge and Magistrate. It should be highlighted that those observed only 2 or less times were dropped for analysis.
Overall, no Court scored below 60 (Low). Six (6) of the 24 Courts (24%) assessed scored exceptional over 90% assessment score. Thirteen (13) courts scored very good (80-90%) and four (4) good (70-79%). Only two (2) courts had a score that can be considered fair (60-69%) – the lowest overall.
Litigants Scores: The assessment made by Llitigants showed an outstanding performance by Masaka Chief Magistrate’s Court and the Criminal Division of the High Court, followed by Kabarole High Court. By territory, Litigants scored Kabarole the highest, followed by Masaka. Certainty, Behavior and Attitude were the common cited areas for improvement.
Legal Professional Scores: The assessment made by Legal Professionals showed an outstanding performance by Courts in Kabarole, Criminal Division and Supreme Court. By territory, Legal Professionals scored Kabarole the highest, followed by Mbarara. Certainty, Behavior and Attitude were also the common cited areas for improvement.
Observation Scores: Overall, Judicial Officials scored exceptionally on aspects relating to ensuring there is respect and order in Court, 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. They were also scored relatively low on the aspect of assigning interpreters and making effort to describe the Court process to Court users.
Civil Society Organizations’ Viewpoints on the Performance of Judiciary Members of the civil society noted that some Judicial staff lack passion for the work and have low commitment of Judicial Officials especially at the lower levels. There is a lot of delays in convening court hearing (starting late), absenteeism without explanation, unnecessary case adjournments and cases take too long to be concluded. There was almost universal agreement among members of civil society about the lack of transparency and integrity among most Judicial Officials.
4.2 Recommendations to Address Challenges o Increase staffing of Judicial Officers. The Judicial Service Commission should be facilitated to carry out recruitment of more Judicial Officials and support staff - particularly Court of Appeal that has a large backlog.
o Capacity building for Judicial Officers especially specialized trainings for officers of particular courts like the Anti-Corruption Court. This was also cited for cases related to mental health.
60 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
o Improve remuneration: The Government of Uganda should urgently address the issue of the under-funding to the institution of the Judiciary. Arrangements to provide adequate working space for Judges, Registrars, Magistrates and other Staff members should be expedited.
o There is need to improve availability of basic facilities for court users during Court sessions including People With Disability. Mukono High Court was cited as example. It lacks facilities that are accessible to lawyers and the public.
o In terms of appointments and promotions, due care must be taken to appoint Judicial Officers whose skill in a particular area would enhance or be beneficial to the particular line of appointment. Similarly, specialty and background of Judges needs to be considered when making appointments for cases.
o There is need to frequently transfer Clerks and other support staff to eliminate the cases of solicitation of bribes in the names of Judicial Officials.
o Monitoring and evaluation of Judicial staff: This is recommended to improve attitude and commitment to work among Judicial officers.
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 gist of writing individual judgments is that it opens room for scholarly debate on legal issues. o Being the precedent setting Court, the Supreme Court should clarify the law to the fullest extent possible to avoid uncertainty in lower courts. In some instances, the Court can go a step further in expanding the law to the fullest extent possible.
Court of Appeal o Of importance in this respect is the necessity to ensure that Justices of the Court of Appeal (and, in that regard, the other courts, the High Court and Supreme Court) share the judicial workload in an equitable manner. In effect, there is need for the empanelling of justices of appeal to reflect a fair distribution of the workload, bearing in mind the nature and breadth of the cases assigned. o There were (four) 4 judgments rendered by individual judges—these were in respect of Criminal Applications for grant of bail pending Appeal. Notably, although the applications were all grounded on “advanced age” as the basis, Judges declined in both (although understandably in the latter case, the applicants had been convicted of capital offences). The contradiction over similar factors speak to the need for the development of guidelines.
High Courts o The Principal Judge should request all the judges to have their judgments available to the stakeholders not more than two weeks from the date of delivery. o Refresher training on standardisation of judgments must be undertaken to improve the quality of judgments.
61 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
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 82.9 83.2 83.1 24.5 25.5 25.0 3.7 3.85 3.775 8.4 8.5 8.43 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 38.1 36.9 37.5 Court & Location Supreme court 90.2 94.0 92.1 26.3 29.4 27.8 4.3 4.5 4.4 9.3 9.5 9.4 4.3 4.7 4.5 4.65 4.75 4.7 41.4 41.1 41.25 Court of appeal 74.6 73.6 74.1 22.7 23.4 23.0 3.45 3.6 3.5 7.6 7.9 7.8 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.65 3.55 3.6 33.9 31.5 32.7 Land Division 79.6 78.5 79.1 24.0 24.3 24.2 3.7 3.75 3.7 7.6 7.8 7.7 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.35 4.3 36 34.5 35.25 Commercial Division 86.2 84.3 85.3 24.2 25.8 25.0 4.45 4.1 4.3 9.3 8.6 8.9 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.45 4.2 4.3 39.6 37.2 38.4 Criminal Division 95.4 94.5 94.9 28.1 27.9 28.0 4.7 4.4 4.6 9.5 9.4 9.5 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 43.5 43.2 43.35 Family Division 84.6 84.6 24.6 24.6 3.8 3.8 8.5 8.5 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 39.6 39.6 Anti-Corruption Court 82.8 76.7 79.8 24.8 22.8 23.8 3.55 3.35 3.5 8.1 8.5 8.3 3.9 3.7 3.8 4.45 4.4 4.4 38.1 33.9 36 HC Masaka 83.5 87.0 85.2 24.5 26.4 25.4 3.7 4 3.9 8.8 8.9 8.9 3.6 4.7 4.1 4 4.3 4.2 39 38.7 38.85 HC Mbale 83.1 77.6 80.3 23.1 25.8 24.5 4 3.25 3.6 8.6 8.3 8.5 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.6 39.9 33.3 36.6 HC Arua 88.1 73.2 80.6 25.1 24.6 24.8 2.7 2.3 2.5 8.4 7.2 7.8 3.7 4.2 3.9 4.45 4.35 4.4 43.8 30.6 37.2 HC Mbarara 80.7 88.2 84.5 22.4 27.3 24.8 3.5 4.25 3.9 9.3 9.1 9.2 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.9 4.8 4.9 36.9 38.4 37.65 HC Gulu 68.3 86.3 77.3 17.9 25.8 21.8 2.45 4.1 3.3 6.3 9.0 7.6 3.0 4.3 3.6 3.65 4.45 4.1 35.1 38.7 36.9 HC Kabarole 94.7 95.6 95.1 28.5 30 29.3 4.25 4.3 4.3 9.6 9.7 9.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.85 4.8 4.8 42.9 42.3 42.6 HC Jinja 84.4 84.2 84.3 24.3 26.4 25.4 2.95 2.7 2.8 8.8 8.4 8.6 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.55 4.55 4.6 39.9 38.1 39 Nakawa 71.0 84.3 77.7 20.0 25.2 22.6 3.2 3.9 3.6 7.5 8.5 8.0 3.3 4.2 3.8 3.75 4.4 4.1 33.3 38.1 35.7 Mengo 84.2 75.7 79.9 26.3 22.8 24.5 3.95 3.4 3.7 8.6 7.6 8.1 4.3 3.9 4.1 4.45 4.15 4.3 36.6 33.9 35.25 CM Masaka 76.4 85.6 81.0 22.8 25.2 24.0 3.3 3.9 3.6 7.6 8.3 8.0 3.6 4.0 3.8 4 4.65 4.3 35.1 39.6 37.35 CM Mbale 97.5 90.0 93.8 29.0 26.1 27.5 4.7 4.35 4.5 9.7 9.1 9.4 4.3 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.9 45 40.8 42.9 CM Arua 82.3 82.4 82.4 24.2 25.8 25.0 3.5 3.35 3.4 8.4 8.0 8.2 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.65 4.5 37.8 36.3 37.05 CM Mbarara 78.3 90.9 84.6 24.8 28.5 26.6 3.35 4.4 3.9 7.3 9.4 8.4 3.6 4.4 4.0 3.85 4.6 4.2 35.4 39.6 37.5 CM Kabarole 86.7 94.4 90.5 26.7 29.7 28.2 3.55 4.45 4.0 8.6 9.7 9.1 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.45 4.75 4.6 39 41.4 40.2 CM Jinja 92.2 88.9 90.5 27.8 26.4 27.1 4.15 4.25 4.2 8.9 7.8 8.4 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.85 4.55 4.7 42 41.1 41.55 CM Gulu 87.6 82.6 85.1 26.0 24 25.0 3.85 3.95 3.9 8 8.8 8.4 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.25 4.3 41.7 37.5 39.6 HC Mukono 78.4 51.8 65.1 22.1 17.4 19.7 3.35 2.8 3.1 7.7 5.7 6.7 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.55 2.3 2.9 38.4 20.4 29.4 CM Mukono 61.9 63.7 62.8 16.5 18 17.3 2.5 3.25 2.9 6.8 6.1 6.5 2.7 3.2 3.0 3.05 3.4 3.2 30.3 29.7 30
62 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Annex 2: Court Scores by Litigants
Impartiality Certainty Professionalism Behavior and attitude Communication Fairness
%score Total Total free from bias and discrimination and free frombias Gives one time to explain time one Gives Informs accused of their right to bail to bail right Informs ofaccused their Casefile always for available proceedings Weighted score Weighted Gives service on scheduled time scheduled on service Gives resolve the case in due time due case the in resolve Weighted score Weighted Offers attention in analyzing evidence analyzing Offersin attention knowledge and understanding of case the understanding and knowledge Weighted score Weighted Explains reasons for reasons absence Explains Respects to court users (courteous etc) (courteous to Respects users court Available in court at scheduled times atcourt scheduled in Available Not against culture, religion or sentiments Notor sentiments religion against culture, Weighted score Weighted Free from using abusive language abusive fromusing Free Clarifies or explains in a polite manner a polite in Clarifiesor explains Weighted score Weighted Gives clear order and decision in court in decision and clear order Gives Uses witness statement Useswitness Treats both genders equally genders Treatsboth Weighted score Weighted Maximum points 100.0 5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 30.0 2.5 2.5 5 5 5 10 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 5.0 2.5 2.5 5 15 15 15 45 Total 82.9 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.2 24.5 3.8 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.3 8.4 3.3 4.1 3.9 4.4 3.9 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4 4.5 38.1 Court Supreme court 90.2 4.5 4.6 4.4 3.7 4.8 26.3 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.7 9.3 3.6 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.3 5 4.3 4.65 4.5 4.4 4.9 41.4 Court of appeal 74.6 3.6 3.7 3.6 4 3.8 22.7 3.4 3.5 3.45 3.8 3.8 7.6 2.8 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.3 3.8 3.5 3.65 3.7 3.6 4 33.9 Land Division 79.6 4.0 4.1 4 3.5 4.4 24.0 4.1 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.8 7.6 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.8 3.8 4.4 36 Commercial Division 86.2 4.3 4.5 4.5 2.3 4.8 24.2 4.4 4.5 4.45 4.4 4.9 9.3 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.45 4.7 4.1 4.4 39.6 Criminal Division 95.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 28.1 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.7 9.5 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 43.5 Family Division 84.6 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.9 24.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.4 8.5 3.4 4.2 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.2 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.7 39.6 Anti-Corruption Court 82.8 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.8 4.3 24.8 3.8 3.3 3.55 4 4.1 8.1 3.2 4.2 3.8 4.3 3.9 4.6 4.3 4.45 4.1 3.9 4.7 38.1 HC Masaka 83.5 4.0 3.9 4.4 3.8 4.2 24.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.5 8.8 2.8 3.9 3.2 4.4 3.6 4.1 3.9 4 4.5 4.1 4.4 39 HC Mbale 83.1 4.0 4.2 4.3 2.5 4.4 23.1 4 4 4 4.3 4.3 8.6 2.5 4.1 3.8 4.6 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.2 4.8 39.9 HC Arua 88.1 4.0 4.6 3.9 3.6 4.6 25.1 3.4 2 2.7 3.9 4.5 8.4 2.8 4.3 3 4.7 3.7 4.9 4 4.45 4.9 4.9 4.8 43.8 HC Mbarara 80.7 4.0 4.4 3.5 3.2 3.8 22.4 3.4 3.6 3.5 4.4 4.9 9.3 2.8 3.6 3.9 4.8 3.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 3.4 3.9 5 36.9 HC Gulu 68.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.6 17.9 2.6 2.3 2.45 3 3.3 6.3 1.9 3.7 2.6 3.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 3.65 4.1 3.5 4.1 35.1 HC Kabarole 94.7 4.7 5 4.9 4.4 4.7 28.5 4.2 4.3 4.25 4.8 4.8 9.6 3.7 4.9 4.6 5 4.6 5 4.7 4.85 4.7 4.6 5 42.9 HC Jinja 84.4 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.6 3.6 24.3 3 2.9 2.95 4.3 4.5 8.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 4.5 3.9 4.8 4.3 4.55 4.4 4.6 4.3 39.9 HC Mukono 71.0 3.5 3.5 3.7 2.9 3.2 20.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.8 3.7 7.5 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.9 3.3 4.1 3.4 3.75 3.8 3.5 3.8 33.3 Nakawa 84.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.7 26.3 4.1 3.8 3.95 4.1 4.5 8.6 3.9 4.4 4.2 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.45 4.1 3.3 4.8 36.6 Mengo 76.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.1 3.7 22.8 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.7 3.9 7.6 3 3.7 3.5 4.1 3.6 4 4 4 3.6 3.8 4.3 35.1 CM Masaka 97.5 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 29.0 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.9 9.7 2.5 4.9 4.7 5 4.3 4.8 5 4.9 5 5 5 45 CM Mbale 82.3 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.6 4.2 24.2 3.6 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.3 8.4 3.9 4.1 4 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3 37.8 CM Arua 78.3 3.8 4.2 3.4 4.4 4.5 24.8 3.4 3.3 3.35 3.6 3.7 7.3 3.1 3.8 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.85 3.9 4 3.9 35.4 CM Mbarara 86.7 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.7 26.7 3.8 3.3 3.55 4.2 4.4 8.6 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.45 4.2 4 4.8 39 CM Kabarole 92.2 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.1 4.7 27.8 4.1 4.2 4.15 4.3 4.6 8.9 3.7 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.5 4.9 4.8 4.85 4.3 4.9 4.8 42 CM Jinja 87.6 4.2 4.7 4.2 3.8 4.6 26.0 3.8 3.9 3.85 4.1 3.9 8 2.9 4.2 3.7 4.4 3.8 4.9 3.7 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.9 41.7 CM Gulu 78.4 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 22.1 3.6 3.1 3.35 3.8 3.9 7.7 2.6 3.4 3.4 4.1 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.55 4.1 4.3 4.4 38.4 CM Mukono 61.9 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.1 2.3 16.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.4 6.8 2.3 2.8 2.4 3.4 2.7 3.1 3 3.05 3.4 3.5 3.2 30.3
63 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Annex 3: Court Scores by Legal Professionals
Impartiality Professionalism Fairness Certainty Behavior and attitude Communication
%score
Capacitycourtproceeding to normal conduct
Free from bias and discrimination discrimination and from bias Free
Weighted ScoreWeighted
Carefully analyzes evidences evidences analyzes Carefully
knowledge and understanding of law the understanding and knowledge
Capacity in identifying the issue of case issue the the identifying Capacity in
Adequately prepared for courtproceeding the prepared Adequately
Weighted ScoreWeighted
Clearly explains outcome ofexplains Clearly casethe
Empathetic to witness, listens to allparties to listens witness, Empathetic
Administers justice without undue without justice Administers
Weighted ScoreWeighted
Gives service to court users on scheduled time scheduled on toservice courtusers Gives
Makes effort time Makes due case to the resolve in
Weighted ScoreWeighted
Explains reasonsfor Explains absence
Accepts and implements constitutionalism implements and Accepts
Always available in court at scheduled times courtat scheduled available in Always
Takes care is not against sentiments of Takesothers care againstnot is sentiments
Weighted ScoreWeighted
free from using strong or abusive languagestrong or freeabusive from using
Clarifies in amanner Clarifiespolite in
Weighted ScoreWeighted Maximum points 100 10 10 30 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10 15 15 15 45 5 5 5 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 5 2.5 2.5 5 Total 83.2 4.3 4.2 25.5 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 8.5 4.1 4.1 4.1 36.9 3.9 3.8 3.85 3.9 4.4 4 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.3 Court Supreme court 94.0 4.9 4.9 29.4 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8 9.5 4.5 4.7 4.5 41.1 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.75 Court of appeal 73.6 4 3.8 23.4 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.2 7.9 3.6 3.5 3.4 31.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.55 Land Division 78.5 4 4.1 24.3 4 3.7 4 3.8 7.8 3.9 4.1 3.5 34.5 4 3.5 3.75 3.8 3.6 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.3 4.4 4.35 Commercial Division 84.3 4.4 4.2 25.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.5 8.6 4.1 4.1 4.2 37.2 4.2 4 4.1 4 5 4.2 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.2 Criminal Division 94.5 4.8 4.5 27.9 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.7 9.4 4.7 4.8 4.9 43.2 4.7 4.1 4.4 5 4.8 3.9 5 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 Anti-Corruption Court 76.7 3.7 3.9 22.8 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 8.5 4 3.5 3.8 33.9 3.4 3.3 3.35 3.2 3.5 3.4 4.8 3.7 4.5 4.3 4.4 HC Masaka 87.0 4.5 4.3 26.4 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.4 8.9 4.4 4.4 4.1 38.7 4.1 3.9 4 4.3 5.4 4 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.3 HC Mbale 77.6 4.2 4.4 25.8 4.2 4.1 4 4.3 8.3 3.8 3.4 3.9 33.3 3.3 3.2 3.25 2.1 4 3.1 4.5 3.4 3.7 3.3 3.5 HC Arua 73.2 4 4.2 24.6 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.1 7.2 3.7 3.7 2.8 30.6 2.5 2.1 2.3 4.9 4.5 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.1 4.35 HC Mbarara 88.2 4.7 4.4 27.3 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.4 9.1 4.3 4.2 4.3 38.4 4.2 4.3 4.25 3.8 4.2 4.5 5 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 HC Gulu 86.3 4.1 4.5 25.8 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.7 9.0 4.2 4.4 4.3 38.7 4.4 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.45 HC Kabarole 95.6 5 5 30 4.9 5 4.8 4.6 9.7 4.5 4.9 4.7 42.3 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.8 5 4.5 5 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.8 HC Jinja 84.2 4.5 4.3 26.4 4.3 4.6 4.1 3.8 8.4 3.9 4.4 4.4 38.1 2.9 2.5 2.7 3.6 4.5 2.7 5.4 4.1 4.8 4.3 4.55 Nakawa 84.3 4.4 4 25.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.3 8.5 3.9 4.4 4.4 38.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 4 4.2 4.9 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.4 Mengo 75.7 3.8 3.8 22.8 3.6 3.8 4.1 3.6 7.6 3.4 4 3.9 33.9 3.4 3.4 3.4 4 3.6 3.5 4.3 3.9 4.3 4 4.15 CM Masaka 85.6 4.2 4.2 25.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4 8.3 4.4 4.6 4.2 39.6 3.8 4 3.9 2.8 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.8 4.5 4.65 CM Mbale 90.0 4.5 4.2 26.1 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 9.1 4.6 4.6 4.4 40.8 4.5 4.2 4.35 4.2 5 5.2 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.8 CM Arua 82.4 4.2 4.4 25.8 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.8 8.0 3.6 4.2 4.3 36.3 3.3 3.4 3.35 4.1 4.6 3.8 4.8 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.65 CM Mbarara 90.9 4.9 4.6 28.5 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.7 9.4 4.5 4.2 4.5 39.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 CM Kabarole 94.4 4.9 5 29.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 9.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 41.4 4.4 4.5 4.45 3.5 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.4 5 4.5 4.75 CM Jinja 88.9 4.6 4.2 26.4 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.8 7.8 4.7 4.4 4.6 41.1 3.9 4.6 4.25 4.1 4.8 4.7 5.4 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.55 CM Gulu 82.6 4 4 24 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.7 8.8 4.3 4 4.2 37.5 4.2 3.7 3.95 4 4.2 4 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.25 HC Mukono 51.8 2.6 3.2 17.4 3 2.6 2.8 3 5.7 3.2 1.8 1.8 20.4 2.6 3 2.8 3.2 3.6 3 3 3.2 1.8 2.8 2.3 CM Mukono 63.7 3.1 2.9 18 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 6.1 3.4 3.2 3.3 29.7 3.4 3.1 3.25 3.1 3.5 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.4
64 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Annex 4: CSOs that Participated
No Name of Organization Location 1 Human Rights Activists Elgon Mbale 2 Law Development Centre Kampala 3 LAP of Uganda Law Society Kabarole 4 Platform for Labour Action (PLA) Kampala 5 Refugee Law Project Kampala 6 Uganda Christian Lawyers Fraternity Kampala 7 Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum Kampala 8 Women Rights Initiative Jinja 9 Sign Health Uganda Masaka 10 Southern Region Social Rights Association Masaka 11 National Union for Disabled Persons of Uganda Kampala 12 FHRI Kampala 13 Legal aid service provider Kampala 14 Women Rights Initiative Jinja 15 Uganda Human Rights Commission Kampala 16 Community Justice and Anticorruption Forum Kampala 17 Rwenzori Anti-Corruption Coalition (RAC) Kabarole 18 ELIM Uganda Mbale 19 Refugee Law Project Mbarara 20 Legal aid project – Uganda Law Society Gulu 21 Justice Law and Order Sector Arua 22 Uganda Law Society Mbarara 23 Legal Development Centre Mbarara 24 Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS Kampala 25 MIFUMI Kampala 26 Women Concern Ministries Mbale 27 TWERWANEHO Listeners Club Kabarole 28 Network of Public Interest Lawyers Kampala 29 FIDA Uganda Arua 30 Law Mediation Centre Arua 31 Christ Church Gulu 32 FIDA Uganda Kampala 33 Justice Centre Uganda Mbale 34 Legal aid clinic - LDC Kampala 35 Uganda Human Rights Commission Jinja
65 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
Annex 5: Detailed Comments on Judgments Reviewed
Supreme Court
a) Hwan Sung Limited vs M and D Timber Merchants and Transporters Civ App. 02 of 2018 The genesis was a suit by which the Appellant had sought a declaration that it was the lawful owner of the suit property, and, the Respondent was a trespasser. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was time barred. The Rules specify that a person has a right of Appeal against a decree. In other instances, leave to Appeal must be sought. The contention which succeeded before the Court of Appeal was that the Appellant had not sought leave of the trial Court, and hence there was no Appeal to decide upon.
The Court agreed with the Appellant that where a trial Court makes a decision, by whatever name (Order or Judgment) which has the effect of disposing of the suit, what arises out of that decision is a decree from which an Appeal sounds as of right. Therefore, the Appellant had appealed as of right.
It is also significant that the Court invoked the inherent powers of the Supreme Court to decide a point that was overlooked by both lower Courts. This unusual step was taken because the claim had over-delayed in the system. The alternative of sending the parties back to the trial court for disposal of the point would have further delayed the proceedings, when the point appeared to be clear. The point that had been overlooked was the Appellants’ insistence that part of its case was based on trespass; that trespass, being a continuous tort, could not be completely time barred until the tort ceased.
This positive development of the highest Court choosing to dispose of an issue that ought to have been dealt with by the trial Court instead of remitting it to the lower Court is worth reporting.
b) Mumbere Julius vs Uganda Cr. App. 15 of 2014 The appeal involved a plea of self-defence. The facts are that the accused/appellant had used a gun and killed a victim who had no similar dangerous weapon. Over a charge of murder, the appeal point of law was whether if a plea of self-defence fails (in this case due to the unreasonableness of the force used) a conviction for manslaughter can ever be substituted. The majority was for substitution.
Justices Tumwesigye and Mwondha issued a joint opinion dissenting from the majority holding that substitution cannot be done. According to the majority, circumstances may exist pointing to the fact that murder was not intended despite the fact that the accused seeks solace solely from a plea of self-defence. The two Justices’ view is that the plea ofself-defence either succeeds or fails. If it succeeds, the accused is acquitted. If it fails, he is convicted of murder, not for the lesser offence of manslaughter.
The dissenting opinion is articulated excellently, particularly in tlight of the particular facts of the accused who raises only the plea of self-defence. It will open debate as to whether an accused should be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time; to say that “I was in imminent danger of being killed and so I had to act, but if it is proved that I used an axe against an insect, it should be held that I had no intention of killing it. “
66 | P a g e
THE UGANDA JUDICIARY SCORECARD REPORT 2018
c) Attorney General vs. Gladys Nakibuule Kisekka, Constitutional Appeal 02 of 2016 An Appeal against the decision of the Constitutional Court which declared that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent, a Judicial Officer, was unconstitutional because it infringed her rights to immunity. The facts were that the Disciplinary Committee of the Judicial Service Commission had considered that the Respondent had retracted her order in respect of execution under suspicious circumstances. When charged with a disciplinary offence, she refused to take a plea and referred the matter to the Constitutional Court. She argued before the Court that what she had done was a judicial act within the Constitutional protections for immunity and independence of Judicial Officers. The Court agreed, and, the Attorney General appealed. The lead judgment was written by Justice Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza. She analysed the essence of the Constitutional protections emphasizing that a Judicial Officer’s act or decision made within the exercise of judicial functions is protected in respect of genuine errors; that Judicial Officers are protected while they do the right thing, and also, when they do the wrong thing whilst they genuinely believe it to be right. But immunity does not extend to acts that amount to abuse of office, deliberately doing the wrong thing with malice or with a corrupt motive. In any case, the constitutional protections have to be read together with those that set up and empower the JSC. It was within the powers of the JSC to determine whether the impugned act was protected or not. The appeal was allowed. The judgment has a high jurisprudential value on the essence of immunity and independence of Judicial Officers.
67 | P a g e