Prime
PJ Flavian Zeija, Justice Mubiru clash after court registrar recalls garnishee order
Combo: Principal Judge Flavian Zeija (L) and Justice Stephen Mubiru (R). PHOTOS/ FILE/ COURTESY
What you need to know:
- Justice Mubiru reminded fellow judicial officers to be free from any control while they make judgements not only from the executive and legislative arms of government but also from the judiciary where they work.
- The Principal Judge in what seemed to be a hit back to Justice Mubiru's acidic ruling, has directed him not to hear any cases until he has delivered the 170 pending judgments and rulings before him within 60 days.
The Principal Judge, Flavian Zeija and the head of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Justice Stephen Mubiru have clashed over a controversially recalled garnishee order.
The hostility between the two judiciary principals arises from a recalled garnishee order allegedly on the directives of the Principal Judge to a registrar of the Commercial Court, an administrative move that didn't go down well with Justice Mubiru.
The jurist described the process of recalling garnishee order as an attack on the "independence of judicial officers" which is a bedrock in deciding disputes in the Judiciary which they swore to protect while taking judicial oath.
"This is to immediately recall the garnishee order Nisi issued in the execution of miscellaneous application number 641 of 2023 as directed by the Principal Judge in a letter dated October 27, 2023," Justice Mubiru quotes the deputy registrar in his ruling.
About the recalled garnishee order
Court records show that on October 27 this year, the deputy registrar of the Commercial Court issued a garnishee order in favour of Mr John Imaniraguha against the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA).
Mr Imaniraguha was to that effect, supposed to recover Shs26 billion from the tax body.
However, on October 30, the same deputy registrar issued a contrary order, recalling the same garnishee order.
She argued that she had done so on the directives of the Principal Judge, the administrative head of the High Court in the country.
This anomaly, saw Mr Imaniraguha appeal against the recall of his order before the head of the court, Justice Mubiru.
Mr Imaniraguha, among others, argued that the deputy registrar didn't have powers to recall her own decision since her hands became tied moments she issued the same order in his favour and that she also never accorded him a hearing before she recalled the said garnishee order. To that effect, he asked Justice Mubiru to quash the said recall.
"The order is a nullity for lack of jurisdiction. There are errors on the face of the record, sufficient to justify the grant of this application," Mr Imaniraguha stated in his petition to Justice Mubiru.
In his ruling, Justice Mubiru agreed with the submissions of Mr Imaniraguha before scoffing at the administrative directive of the Principal Judge to the registrar to recall the garnishee order.
According to Justice Mubiru, the interference by the Principal Judge is sad for the judiciary where decisional independence is key in exercise while they administer justice to the litigants.
"However, the reason given by the learned deputy registrar for recalling the order is not that there had been a slip in dating the order, but rather that she had been directed by the Hon, The Principal Judge in a letter dated 27th October, 2023 to do so. If this is true, it presents a prima facie affront on decisional independence as a key element in the exercise of judicial power which, if accepted in future cases, would constitute significant delusion of the protection afforded to decisional independence," Justice Mubiru stated in his ruling.
He further reminded fellow judicial officers to be free from any control while they make judgements not only from the executive and legislative arms of government but also from the judiciary where they work.
"Judicial independence points that a judicial should decide cases solely based on the law and facts that are applicable free from outside pressures or inducements, free of influence or control by the actors, whether governmental or private without regard to political pressure, without regard to the fact that there are some who would corrupt the judicial decision-making process for their own advantage, without regard to partnership, fear of intimidation or special interests," Justice Mubiru held.
"Judicial officers should not be afraid of the effect of an unpopular but legally sound decision might have on their transfer, elevation, confirmation, promotion, or appointment, unless decisional independence is guaranteed, this would create a temptation for judicial officers to make decisions based on how it would be perceived by those in power from time to time without regard for the law," he added.
Principal Judge hits back
The Principal Judge in what seemed to be a hit back to Justice Mubiru's acidic ruling, has directed him not to hear any cases until he has delivered the 170 pending judgments and rulings before him within 60 days.
The implication is that Justice Mubiru has to write an average of about three decisions a day.
"As of November 22, 2023, your lordship had 170 pending judgments and rulings. This number constitutes the biggest number judgments and rulings pending before a single judge at the High Court level. The majority of those judgments and rulings before you unreasonably, are long periods contrary to the principle 6-2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct," the Principal Judge wrote to Justice Mubiru.
Adding: "Therefore, in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Judicature Act, I direct as follows; ...write and deliver all the pending judgments and rulings within 60 days effective December 5, 2023. During this period, you are further directed not to hear any case or allocation of any new files until a satisfactory report has been availed to this office indicating that you have written and delivered all the pending judgments and rulings."
The clash between the two principals has prompted some lawyers to demand that the Principal Judge directs other judges as well to clear pending judgments and rulings.
"Why don't you give us all full statistics concerning the judges! We know many judges who have many pending judgments, where are their letters," a lawyer who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being victimised, wondered.
[email protected]
