LECTURER: MR.

ISAAC SEKABANJA
TUTOR: Ms. RUTH MBABAZI

GROUP 4.

1. AGABA NOEL AM23B11/004

2. ARINAITWE ANGELLA AM23B11/028
3. IKANGA COLLINS AM23B11/151
4. NALUBOWA E TAMARA AM23B11/101
5. IRAGABA MARK WYCLIFF AM23B11/041
6. LETARU WINNIE TOLLEA AM23B11/071
7. MUGABE COLLINS AM23B11/080
8. NANANGWE AMINAH AM23B11/110
MERCY
9. NZAAALA MERCY AM23B11/123
10. RACHEAL NABULYA AM23B11/134
11. WANDA EDITH AM23B11/
12. NAHABWE COLLINS AM23B11/158
13. WANDERA ASSUMAN AM23B11/146
 NATURAL JUSTICE

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary

Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in the determination of right and wrong, according to
the Roman law, certain basic legal principles are required by nature and are so obvious that they
should be applied in the course of justice without necessarily being codified. These rules are now
being applied in common law jurisdictions.
According to Administrative Law by Wade natural justice is a natural sense of what is right and
wrong. It is mainly premised on two principles that is; Audi alteram partem which means hear
both sides and Nemo Judex in causa sua protest to mean no one can be a judge in their own
case. All these are rules of fairness that should be exercised by someone who makes a decision
that may affect the rights of another.
In the context of the Ugandan legal system, natural justice is enshrined in Article 421 is to the
effect that any person appearing before any administrative official or body has a right to be
treated justly and fairly and shall have a right to apply to a court of law in respect of any
administrative decision taken against him or her.
It is important to note that failure to observe the principles of natural justice will lead to the
institution of judicial review. That the procedure of arriving at a particular decision did not put
into regard the right to a fair hearing and involved violation of rather vital procedure to arrive to
a decision in the interest of justice.
In Ssebude Joseph v Inspector General of Government2 , Justice Yorokamu Bamwine
observed that the rules of natural justice apply to all judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and
provide, for example, that hearings must be unbiased. Other principles of natural justice include;
the right to have ones case considered- audi alteram partem including to the right to notice of
the case against one, and the right to have notice of the hearing.
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING

The right to a fair hearing is stated within the latin maxim Audi alteram partem which means
let the other side be heard. This in light of Uganda’s legal system is re-enunciated under Article
283 which is to the effect that, in the determination of civil rights and obligation, or any criminal
charge, every person shall be accorded a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent
and impartial court or tribunal established by law.
1
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended)
2
Misc. Cause No.0032 of 2010
3
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda,1995 (as amended)
Article 44(c)4 in addition provides that the right to a fair hearing is non derogable hence it can
under no circumstances be taken away. This emphasizes the significance of a fair hearing and
concept of natural justice as a whole.
Furthermore, in the case of Ridge v Baldwin5, the plaintiff had been prosecuted and acquitted on
charges of conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. The Brighton watch committee which was
responsible for enforcing discipline in the police force purported to dismiss the plaintiff from his
post, without giving him prior notice or hearing and applied to court contending that his
dismissal was invalid. The court held to the effect that the principle of Audi alteram partem
goes back many centuries in our law. An officer cannot lawfully be dismissed without first
telling him what is alleged against him and hearing his defense or explanation as per Lord Reid.

TENETS OF A RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING.

1. Prior Notice
Under notice, a party must be reliably informed of the case against him or her so as to
adequately prepare himself, acquire knowledge of the facts so as to know how best they
can present their case in defense of the charges brought against him or her. The notice
must also be communicated in a manner that is reasonably likely to bring it to the
attention of the individual. In other words, the communication must be fairly
conspicuous.
In the case of Desouza vs Tanga Town Council6, the court held that notice should
include the substance of the allegations of the charge and it must specify the time and
place where the hearing is to take place.

2. The party must be given the opportunity to adequately present their case.
In presentation of their case, a party is entitled to duly be heard and either correct facts or
contradict.
In R v University of Cambridge7, the defendant had deprived Bentley of his degree to
without giving him opportunity to be heard. Bentley was able to have the act of the
university declared a nullity because he had not been heard in his defence.
This also entails accepting and granting adjournment of the case for further hearing in
case there is a matter that arises and the parties need more time to present their case
substantially.

3. Cross examination

4
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995(as amended)
5
(1964) AC 40
6
(1961) EA 37
7
(1723) 1 Str 557
 A party should be accorded opportunity to hear the witnesses of the claimant and if they
want, examine them and challenge their submissions.
In Rose Mary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission8, court observed that a fair
hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution means that a party should be afforded
opportunity to, inter alia, hear the witnesses of the other side testifying openly; that he
should, if he so chooses challenge those witnesses by way of cross examination; that he
should be given opportunity to give his own evidence, if he so chooses; and that he
should, if he so wishes call witnesses to support his case. The supreme court emphasized
this in Charles Twagira v Uganda9
In the light of the same, in Ssebudde Joseph v Inspector General of Government,10
where the applicant was terminated from his job on allegations of bribery of the interview
organizers basing on whistle blowers complaints. He was not allowed to cross examine
the complainants and thus denied a fair hearing. Court held that since the IGG considered
the accusation against the applicant proved by whistle blowers’ information to him and
yet the applicant did not have the opportunity to contradict those accusations since those
whistle blowers couldn’t come out to identify themselves. He did not have the
opportunity to defend himself before any properly constituted body that could determine
his guilt or innocence.
The implication is that he was condemned unheard without his case being heard by an
independent court of tribunal established by law. In these circumstances, the decision to
terminate his employment cannot be said to have been arrived at through fair procedures
and due process.

4. Right to legal representation.

Article 28(1) (d)11 provides for the right of a person to be permitted to appear before the
court in person or at that persons own expense, by a lawyer of his or her own choice.
In Enderby Town Football Club v The Football Association Ltd12, court held that
denial of legal presentation is not necessarily breach of natural justice. Lord Denning MR
at page 607 stated thus, “Seeing that courts can inquire into the validity of the rule, the
question is; is it lawful for the body to stipulate in its rules that its domestic tribunal shall
not permit legal representation? Such a stipulation is, I think, clearly valid so long as it
is construed as directory and not imperative; for that it leaves open to the tribunal to
permit legal representation in an exceptional case when the justice of the case so
requires. But I have some doubt whether it is legitimate to make a rule which is so

8
HCMC No.45 of 2010 (unreported)
9
Crim Appeal No.27 of 2003.
10
Ibid
11
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995. (as amended)
12
(1971) ch.591
 imperative in its terms as to exclude legal representation altogether, without giving the
tribunal discretion to admit it, even when the justice of the case so requires.”
Regarding the legal representation, the reviewing court will normally establish procedure,
the practice adopted by the tribunal or authority whose decision is reviewed. Thus, where
it has not been allowing legal representation, it should do so for everybody but where it
has not been doing so, the denial will not amount to breach of natural justice.

BIAS.
The rule against bias is enshrined in the latin maxim ‘‘nemo judex in causa sua’’ that
means that no man should be a judge in his own case.
Article 28(1)13 established the right to be heard in an impartial court or tribunal. No one
should be allowed to be a judge in which they have a predetermined thought, inclination
or prejudice more so not subsequently based on material facts and evidence but some
other reason. Justice should not only be done but should undoubtedly be seen to be done.
In reference to the Black’s law dictionary 10th edition, the doctrine of bias is defined as
an inclination, bent, preposition, preconceived, predisposition to decide a cause or issue
in a particular way.
In Metropolitan Properties v Lannon, Lord Deenning observed that; ‘justice must be
rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away
thinking the judge was biased.
Bias may be looked at in two forms that is; pecuniary and none pecuniary bias.

Pecuniary bias.
This is one in which the party has a financial interest or relation with a party to a suit or
administrative decision and it is immaterial whether one has a very small financial
interest otherwise it will still be ruled out as bias and it is likely to affect their judgement.
In Lessen v General Council of Medical Education14, court observed that a person who
has a judicial duty to perform disqualifies himself from performing it if he has a
pecuniary interest in the decision which he is about to give or bias which renders him
otherwise an impartial judge. If he has a pecuniary interest in the success of the
accusation then he must not be a judge.
In the same light, the same applies where there is a substantial pecuniary interest which is
that of the decision maker’s relation and that decision maker should exclude himself or
can be asked to exclude himself since it may render his decision making corrupted.

Non pecuniary bias.

13
The constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1996.(as amemded)
14
(1889) 43 Ch.D 336
 This arises in a case where there is a special relationships between the decision maker
and one of the partied that might lead to a biased decision. It is one which doesn’t entail
money
The court must however establish whether there is a reasonable likelihood or reasonable
suspicion of bias.
The test applicable in determining bias are; actual and apparent bias.
Actual bias.
This occurs when a decision maker is proved that a judge has been influenced by
partiality or prejudice in reaching a decision.
Cases where the absence of real likelihood of bias and in the absence of pecuniary and
other interests and in the absence of real danger or partiality, bias does actually occur and
in this situation the test is one of actual bias.
Proving actual bias is often difficult as it is difficult to explore the state of mind of a
particular authority.

Apparent bias
This is where circumstances exist which give rise to reasonable apprehension or
suspicion that the judge must have been biased.
Due to difficulty in determining actual bias, the common approach is to consider the
material circumstances and apparent bias.
Various tests have been developed to denote the moral capability of decision making
bodies on charges of apparent bias. They include;-

1. Reasonable suspicion and Apprehension of bias

The reasonable apprehension or suspicion of bias test was enunciated by the case of r
v Sussex Justices15 where the fact that the clerk, who was linked to one of the parties
to a case, retired with the justices and gave an appearance of the possibility of bias,
which was held to be enough to lead to the quashing of the verdict.
It places emphasis on matters of appearance of impartiality and based on the premise
that public confidence in the administration of justice is more likely to be maintained
if courts adopt a test that reflects the reaction of the reasonable member of the public
to the allegation in question.
The reference to phrases like “reasonable person/man” indicate that it is the court’s
view of the public which should determine things since this test gives rise to a
number of cases with remote suspicion of bias, the court came up with another test,
real likelihood and danger of bias.

2. Real likelihood and Danger of bias

15
[1924] 1 KB 256
 The real likelihood of bias test imposes a greater obligation on the person alleging the
bias on the part of the judge to strictly prove the allegations. Circumstances in which
the court will conclude that there was a real likelihood of bias include cases where the
decision maker has an interest in the matter under consideration. Interest may be
pecuniary or adverse (adverse interest suffices).
In the case of Regina v Camborne Justices exparte Pearce16, the applicant had been
convicted by the justices on charges of offences under the Food and Drugs Act 1938
which had been brought under the authority of Health Committee of the Cornwall
County Council, but he did not serve on the health committee. An apparent bias was
alleged against the clerk. The court applied the real likelihood of bias test and found
that on the full facts, there was no real likelihood of bias.

Circumstances in which the court will conclude that there was a real likelihood of
bias include cases where the decision maker has an interest in the matter under
consideration.

3. Fair and well informed observer test

In the case of Porter v Magill17, the conservative majority of Westminster council
adopted a policy to sell council houses in parts of the city where it was believed that
home owners were more likely to vote conservative. It became known as “the homes
of votes scandal”, involving Dane Shirley Porter. As the leader of Westminster City
Council, she helped formulate a policy which appeared to be designed to sell off the
council housing at very low prices for the purpose of electorate advantage in marginal
words. The scheme was said to be illegal and so Dane would face 31 million eurosin
personal liability if an investigation proved so. An auditor investigated and concluded
that Porter had engaged in willful misconduct, and that she should reimburse the city
for 31 million euros. Porter appealed on the ground of apparent bias on the part of the
auditor; he had given a press conference during his investigation which, she argued an
appearance of bias.
The House of Lords accepted that councilors are elected. However, their powers can
only be used for the purposes for which they are conferred, and not for the electoral
advantage of a political party. Lord Hope concluded that the question was; Whether
the fair minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real
possibility of bias. This became known as the new and final test of bias.

16
2 ALLER 850, 1 QB 41
17
[2002] 2 AC 357
 Examples of non-pecuniary interests;- family connection, personal friendship,
predetermination, active interest in an organization, previous or dual involvement in
the case among others.

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBSERVE NATURAL JUSTICE.

The effect is that a decision given in disregarded of the principles of natural justice is
void. It may lead to the quashing of the decision and damages may ensue from such
proceedings. In Eng. Pascal R. Gakyaro v CAA18 the court observed that the
appellant was being deprived of an office of a public character with the attendant
statutory benefits. That the principles of natural justice demanded that he be given
opportunity to be heard in his defense for whatever worth it might be. That the overall
effect of a denial of natural justice to an aggrieved party renders the decision void and
of no effect.

18
Civil Appeal No.60 of 2006