Litigants Warned Against Weaponizing Recusal Motions

Justice Stephen Mubiru has warned litigants against weaponizing recusal motions to intimidate courts into getting judges of their wish. In a 30-page ruling, Justice Mubiru said although the rules allow for recusal applications, it is important for a judge to resist the temptation to recuse themselves simply because it would be more comfortable to do so, out of embarrassment, or based on expedience, or in order to appease unfounded concerns.

“A judge should disqualify himself only if his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if required by law. There must be some demonstrable and rational basis for what the informed observer suspects to constitute bias. Procedural decisions, even when contested, do not inherently indicate bias unless they cross the threshold of the fair-minded observer test,” Justice Mubiru, who is the resident judge of Mukono High Court, ruled. 

His ruling emanates from an application for recusal filed by two applicants: Patel Prakash Kumar and Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto. The two are part of a wrangle for 640 acres of land found at Kinda village in Kayunga district. The land belonged to the late Hajji Abdul Ssekitto. According to court records, Ssekitto mortgaged his land to the now-defunct Cooperative Bank Limited in 1992. Upon his death, letters of administration of his estate were on October 19, 2017, granted to five of his children: Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto, Gingo Ahmed Sekitto, Nakitto Ziada, Kalule Muzafaru and Sekitto Nuru Nakiranda. 

They claimed that before their father died, he had redeemed the title from the bank. However, in 2021, Kumar attempted to evict them, claiming that he had bought the land from the bank through public auction at Shs 300million. They therefore filed a civil suit in 2021, contesting Kumar’s claims to the land. The court issued temporary orders stopping Kumar from taking over the land until it determined the suit.  

However, three of Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto’s siblings: Lukia Naggayi, Mayimuna Nakayiza and Safina Nanfuka fell out with him and filed another suit in 2024, disassociating themselves from the first suit. When they were being displaced from the land, they approached the then Chairman of the NRM in Kayunga, the now deceased  Kalangwa Kaliisa Moses, for help to prevent Kumar from forcefully entering their land. They handed the duplicate certificate of title to Karangwa, who demanded it as proof that they had a genuine title to the land. 

Unknown to them, their brother Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto had in the meantime sold the title to Karangwa through his company, M/s Katongore International Group Limited. Karangwa, through his company, then evicted the beneficiaries from the suit land save for Gingo Ahmed Sekitto, who had a kraal on the land. Karangwa also stopped Kumar from taking over the land using “security and goons.” 

He was also added to the court case as a respondent. At the beginning of this month, Lukia Naggayi, Mayimuna Nakayiza and Safina Nanfuka applied for a certificate of urgency to hear their case, arguing that they were again being threatened with eviction from the land. Justice Mubiru granted this application. He also conducted a locus visit to the contested land. These actions infuriated Kumar and Kakande Abdallah Ssekitto, who wrote to the Chief Justice, the Principal Judge, and the High Court Registrar complaining about the bias of Justice Mubiru.

In his ruling, Justice Mubiru said that writing to his superiors to complain about legitimate judicial decisions was meant to intimidate him.

“Letters couched in more or less identical terms to the application for recusal, but neither copied to nor served upon the applicants, and not copied to the trial Judge but served upon him, were written to the Honourable Chief Justice and the Honourable Principal Judge. In the complaints, the Chief Justice is asked to: a) launch an immediate administrative inquiry into the trial Judge’s conduct of the matter; b) direct the presiding trial Judge to recuse himself…from the matter in light of the manifest indicators of apparent bias; and c) recall and reallocate the file to a neutral Judge,” Justice Mubiru said. 

He added that while recusal applications are a vital safeguard against judicial bias, they must not be misused as a strategy to manipulate proceedings. “Courts are vigilant in ensuring that such motions are grounded in legitimate concerns and not employed as a bullying tactic to disrupt the judicial process or gain an unfair advantage. 

Some of the tell-tale signs of adoption of a recusal motion as a bullying tactic by a party or an advocate include attacking the judge’s character, race, or background instead of citing legal rules; warning the Judge about complaints to disciplinary committees just to force a step-down; leaking the motion to the media or public first to damage a target’s reputation or apply external pressure before a hearing; leaking the motion to the Judiciary administration seeking administrative intervention before a hearing; using weak, broad, or invented reasons that stretch standard conflict-of-interest rules; claiming bias based only on normal legal rulings or standard courtroom management, and so on,” the ruling reads in part. 

He added that a recusal must be for the protection of justice and not forum shopping. 

“The doctrine is to be applied carefully. Dissatisfaction with rulings is not sufficient. It would lead to manipulation,” the judge said.

He added that the natural first inclination of any judge faced with a recusal application brought by a litigant who says that he or she has no confidence in the judge and believes a fair trial to be impossible is to think that it might be better if he stepped down, even if the complaint is objectively unjustified. 

However, he added that it is important that judges should guard against that inclination and that they should only recuse themselves if satisfied that good grounds for their doing so have been established. 

“While a proper application of judicial recusal guards the impartiality of the justice system, any abuse or misapplication of the recusal rules would only serve to undermine the administration and delivery of justice. Judges must resist the temptation to recuse themselves merely to avoid criticism or controversy, as this could undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

This Court will not readily succumb to bullying or intimidation by a party to recuse itself. Using a recusal motion merely as a sharp practice, outright bullying and intimidation, or as a tool to change an unwanted judicial direction or delay proceedings is routinely rejected by the Courts,” the ruling reads in part. 

It added that it is the duty of a judge to hear and determine the cases which are allocated to him regardless of his personal preferences and regardless of the fact that one or more of the parties might prefer the case to be heard by somebody else. He says, this is the essence of the judicial oath that every judge takes. 

“The courts have also cautioned against granting recusal applications based on expedience or to appease unfounded concerns…a judge should disqualify himself only if his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if required by law. 

The dignity of the court, the judge’s respect for fulfilment of judicial duties, and a proper concern for the burdens that may be imposed upon the judge’s colleagues require that a judge not use disqualification to avoid cases that present difficult, controversial, or unpopular issues or involve difficult, controversial, or unpopular parties or lawyers. A judge has an equal obligation not to yield too easily to weak, nuisance, or unsubstantiated recusal motions, which can undermine the administration of justice.