Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (CRB-596-2022; HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023; KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025) [2026] UGHC 623 (28 May 2026)

# Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (CRB-596-2022; HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023; KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025) [2026] UGHC 623 (28 May 2026) [ Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Uganda+v+Kyagaba+Charles+%28CRB-596-2022%3B+HCT-00-CR-SC+782+of+2023%3B+KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025%29+%5B2026%5D+UGHC+623+%2828+May+2026%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fughc%2F2026%2F623%2Feng%402026-05-28) [ Share this document on X opens in new tab __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Uganda+v+Kyagaba+Charles+%28CRB-596-2022%3B+HCT-00-CR-SC+782+of+2023%3B+KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025%29+%5B2026%5D+UGHC+623+%2828+May+2026%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fughc%2F2026%2F623%2Feng%402026-05-28) [ Share this document on Facebook opens in new tab __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/623/eng@2026-05-28) [ Share this document on LinkedIn opens in new tab __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/623/eng@2026-05-28) [ Share this document by email __](mailto:?subject=Take%20a%20look%20at%20this%20document%20from%20ULII:%20Uganda%20v%20Kyagaba%20Charles%20\(CRB-596-2022;%20HCT-00-CR-SC%20782%20%E2%80%A6&body=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/623/eng@2026-05-28) [ Download RTF (178.5 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/623/eng@2026-05-28/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/623/eng@2026-05-28/source.pdf) Report a problem ##### Is there something wrong with this document? Problem category *Incorrect informationMissing informationNo PDF downloadDocument is emptyDocument is not accessible on my deviceOther What's the problem? * Your email address * CancelReport problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (178.5 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/623/eng@2026-05-28/source) * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/623/eng@2026-05-28/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (CRB-596-2022; HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023; KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025) [2026] UGHC 623 (28 May 2026) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (CRB-596-2022; HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023; KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025) [2026] UGHC 623 (28 May 2026) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2026] UGHC 623 Copy Court [High Court of Uganda](/en/judgments/UGHC/) Court registry [Entebbe High Court](/en/judgments/UGHC/UGHC-entebbe-high-court/) Case number CRB-596-2022 ; HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023 ; KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025 Judges [Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere, J](/en/judgments/all/?judges=Karoli%20Lwanga%20Ssemogerere%2C%20J) Judgment date 28 May 2026 Language English Summary Judge declined the applicant’s recusal, finding no valid grounds and affirming judicial courtroom management powers. ###### Flynote * Judicial Recusal — Procedure — Application under Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) Practice Directions — Section 8 * Criminal Procedure — Trial Management — Judicial control of courtroom decorum and exclusion of unintroduced advocates — Article 126; Judicature Act s.17(2)(a) Read full summary __ ##### Ask AI Ask questions and understand this document faster using AI. __Ask AI * * * Skip to document content **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT ENTEBBE** **IN A MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL OF A JUDICIAL OFFICER AND IN A MATTER ARISING OUT OF** **ARISING OUT OF HCT-00-CR-SC-0782-2023** **In re Kyagaba Charles** _**RULING BY HON. JUSTICE KAROLI LWANGA SSEMOGERERE**_ _**Background**_ : On May 25, 2025, prior to open court in the above matter arising out of CRB 596-2022, I received an application for recusal from handling a number of cases involving the applicant. While the application was raised by way of letter. This is a trial court, and the High Court enjoys inherent jurisdiction in all triable matters under **Article 139(1)** of the Constitution. As a trial court, it is not hemmed in by undue regard to procedure and technicalities under **Article 126(2)(e)** of the Constitution. I will reproduce the matters below from which I have been requested to recuse myself. Unless where specifically mentioned in this ruling, due to the inability of the applicant and the Judge to confer, the recusal is limited to the current matter before me, and none else. The listed matters are as follows. 1. Criminal Case No. 0062 of 2025 2. Criminal Case No. 0017 of 2025 3. Criminal Case No. 0095 of 2025 4. Criminal Case No. 00152 of 2025 5. Criminal Case No. 0054 of 2025 6. Criminal Case No. 0064 of 2025 _**Brief Facts**_ : In this matter, before me, Applicant is an accused person in CRB-596-2022. To-date I have only heard one other matter involving the applicant; Uganda v Kyagaba Charles, **KJS-00-CR-SC-0185-2025.** I delivered judgment in the same matter at Kajjansi CM Court on May 15, 2026 as part of the ongoing criminal session. _**Grounds of the Application**_ : I will summarize the grounds below for ease of reference, starting with those which arise from concluded proceedings and are as follows: 1. The Judicial Officer has exhibited an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation against the accused person and his lawyers in the concluded matter. 2. The Judicial Officer has not respected the applicant’s right to full disclosure from the prosecution. 3. The applicant lost right to representation from his lawyers in the pendency of these proceedings. These are Mr. Musa Kabega, Ms. Christine Namaganda and Ms. Rachel Namiwulya. 4. That withdrawal of the above lawyers forced him to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses unrepresented. 5. Failure by the Trial Judge to avail copies of court proceedings to the applicant after being requested to do so by Mr. Caleb Alaka and Mr. Kenneth Kakande who had assumed conduct of the same matter. 6. Limiting the applicant’s right to call defence witnesses. 7. Continuously interrupting his lawyers in court and not listening to their objections. The application closed with a prayer that he is being denied his right to a fair hearing. **Law Applicable:** The **Constitution** **(Recusal of Judicial Officers) Practice Directions, 2019** has several objectives. These briefly are: (a) promote an adherence to the right to an independent and impartial hearing, (b) promote application of all cardinal principles of natural justice, (c) promote uniformity and consistency on recusal among judicial officers (d) promote harmony between the bar and the bench, even where a member of the bar alleges bias against a member of the bench, (e) avoid confrontation between counsel and judicial officers, counsel and unrepresented litigants, (f) give guidance on recusal to judicial officers , counsel and unrepresented litigants. Recusal is a remedy at the instance of the parties. I must note at the onset; it is granted within the discretion of the judicial officer. The grounds are listed in **Section 7(1)(e**) of the **Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) Practice Directions**. In the above summary of grounds raised by the applicant, I am hard pressed to point to a specific actionable ground raised by the applicant, but can point to what he describes as possibly falling in exhibiting unacceptable conduct in the course of the hearing and or some form of bias. The procedure for disposal of an application is provided for in **Section 8 of the Practice Directions**. Applicant has complied with Section 8(1) informing myself of his request for my recusal. The letter has been received by the Registrar. At an open court hearing on May 26, 205, I also requested a copy of the same to be served on the Honourable Principal Judge, as she had been copied in the letter. **Decision of the Judicial Officer** : I now respond to the application as follows as required by **Section 8(1)** of the same enactment. I also note prior non-statutory guidance by the apex courts on these matters to the effect that a decision on recusal must be placed on the record, for all to see. In **Prof Isaac Newton Ojok v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1991,** where court observed. “Every judge before whom an allegation or bias is made, must enter it upon the record for all to see. The proceedings should be clearly recorded and the application must be determined judicially by the Judge concerned, having in mind the proper legal approach to such a problem.” Recusal is only subject to current proceedings. In respect of conduct in past proceedings, court has delivered a considered judgment and is now functus officio. Management of court proceedings and preservation of court decorum is the responsibility of the judicial officer. This is an important aspect of judicial independence. This right is fortified by the right of appeal of any party in court proceedings where; provided by the law to the higher courts. Management of justice and exercise of judicial power is guided by **Article 126** of the Constitution. I refer to **Article 126(2)(b)** of the Constitution, that requires courts to apply; as one of the principles in administering justice; “justice shall not be delayed.” This principle is also implemented by **Section 17(2)(a)** of the **Judicature Act Cap 16 (the “Judicature Act”)** , the act the regulates the practice of the courts. This provision vests in this court, the High Court, specific powers to curtail the kinds of conduct that have attracted the attention of the applicant. **Section 17(2)(a)** provides: “With regard to its own procedures and those of the magistrates’ courts, the High Court shall exercise its inherent powers- 1. To prevent abuse of process of the court by _curtailing delays in trials and delivery of judgment_ , including the power to limit and discontinue delayed prosecutions. [Emphasis on mine] This is a management power vested in the High Court, as long as it does not violate any specific rule of procedure. No such allegation has been made in this application. With reference to the current proceedings before me, on May 19, 2026, I exercised my discretion to exclude Mr. Mutesaasira Josephat from addressing court from the bar. It is on court record, that the above advocate was representing a different litigant, Mr. Turyasingura and was not introduced as your advocate at the commencement of proceedings. Proper decorum and right of address in court is limited to advocates, appearing in the matter and where unpresented, parties, and the court itself. Court is not a football stadium, where participants freely express themselves orally, physically and using gestures. I must also state, under **Section 16** of the **Advocates Act, Cap 295 (the “Advocates Act”)** “Every advocate and every person otherwise entitled to act as an advocate shall be an officer of court, and _shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court_.” Emphasis mine. The right of audience of advocates in a matter, also known as counsel of record carries with it immense privileges, foreclosed to other persons including pro-se litigants. These privileges include the right to address the Judge in chambers, the right to correspond with the Judge on certain applications, including a right to apply for revision. This privilege also demands restraint demanded of all professional situations. I will refer to an authoritative passage from a Ugandan law academic, Prof. Winifred Tarinyebwa. She wrote thus, “An Advocate is in service to various masters because of the _privileged_ position he finds himself in. He owes a duty to himself/herself, clients, courts, opposing counsel, opposing parties, and the wider community nation1.” Emphasis mine. This is not a duty to the gallery. The emphasis in the above passage, is an advocate is a position of privilege, I wish to humbly add, “privileged service” in a distinguished profession. In Uganda, training of an Advocate exceeds a normal length university course, to extend to professional training at the Law Development Centre, leading to professional qualification entitling one to practice law before the courts. Lastly, the privilege to appear in the High Court is not automatic even after admission to the Bar. Advocates are confined to the Magistrates’ Courts for an initial period until they can appear before the High Court. I cannot address you on recusal in other proceedings which are not before me except to note that in this session, you have been adequate time and facilities to prepare your defence under Article 28(3)(c) of the Constitution. Lastly, the responsibility for transmission and receipt of all court records lies with the Registrar. In this case, this being a High Court at Entebbe session, the correct authority to address such administrative requests is the Registrar who functions as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court. Prior to delivering this ruling, I called for the closed, file and was unable to find a single request for a certified copy of the proceedings on the file. The right to a copy of proceedings is an entitlement after judgment is delivered under Article 28(6) of the Constitution. This allows the accused person to prepare and effectively challenge the decision of the lower court. **Findings and Conclusion** : 1. No valid grounds for recusal have been raised. 2. I decline to recuse myself from further conduct of this matter. 3. As a matter of law, I cannot recuse myself from matters, not before me, or matters in which proceedings have concluded. 4. In accordance with **Section 8(4)** of the Recusal Practice Directions, the matter is for further hearing. 5. This decision is accordingly entered into the record of court in these proceedings. 6. If you are dissatisfied with my decision, I invite you to state your reasons at this point. I SO ORDER, DATED AT KAMPALA THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026 SSEMOGERERE, KAROLI LWANGA JUDGE. _RULING DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT._ Janaat Kitimbo appearing with Joseph Kyomuhendo. Accused is represented by Mr. Jaspert Mutesaasira holding brief for Mr. Kenneth Paul Kakande. Accused/Applicant is in court. Applicant accepts the decision. 1 Published in Brian Dennison and Pamela Tibihikkira Kalyegira (Eds) Legal Ethics and Professionalism, A Handbook for Uganda, Globeethicsnet reproduced in the Uganda Criminal Justice Handbook at page 14. 3 #### __Related documents #### More documents like this one ▲ To the top >