Kampala, Uganda: The High Court has granted the Uganda Law Society (ULS) and its President, Isaac Ssemakadde SC, leave to appeal a ruling by High Court Judge, Justice Esta Nambayo, that declined their application to add the Attorney General (AG) as a party in a judicial review case filed by disgruntled bar members Tonny Tumukunde and Joshua Byamaziima.
In a ruling delivered last Wednesday, June 17, 2025, Justice Bonny Isaac Teko of the High Court’s Civil Division, who replaced Justice Esta Nambayo after she was promoted to the Court of Appeal in February this year, also stayed the ongoing proceedings in the main case pending the outcome of the appeal.
The case stems from a bitter leadership feud within the Uganda Law Society. In November 2024, ULS members Tonny Tumukunde and Joshua Byamaziima petitioned the High Court to quash internal resolutions that reshaped the governance structure of the Radical New Bar under Ssemakadde’s leadership.
The duo questioned the legality of Executive Order RNB No. 1 of 2024 issued by ULS President Ssemakadde, which effectively removed the Attorney General and Solicitor General from the ULS Governing Council.
In response, the ULS, through its Lawyer Jude Byamukama (the Radical New Bar Lead Counsel) sought to add the Attorney General as a necessary party, arguing that the issues in the judicial review application touched constitutional and statutory questions that directly implicated government interest, especially regarding the regulation of professional bodies under public law.
However, on January 17, 2025, Justice Nambayo rejected the application, stating the Attorney General was not a “necessary party” in the matter, since it centered on internal society affairs. Dissatisfied, ULS filed an interlocutory application seeking leave to appeal the ruling and to stay proceedings.
In the latest development, Justice Teko ruled that the Uganda Law Society had raised serious legal questions worth appellate consideration.
“The applicant raised arguable points of law concerning the necessity of involving the Attorney General in a matter with potential constitutional implications. This court is satisfied that leave to appeal is justified,” Justice Teko ruled.
He cited the Departed Asians Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd case, which sets a precedent on who qualifies as a necessary party in litigation.
The court also granted a stay of proceedings, agreeing with ULS that continuing with the main case would prejudice the pending appeal.
“This court finds merit in the prayer to stay proceedings to allow the appeal to be heard first. The question of who should be party to this case is too central to be sidelined,” the ruling read.
Justice Teko invoked precedent from Kato Lubwama v Habib Buwembo, where the Court of Appeal held that granting leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling generally warrants a stay to avoid rendering the appeal nugatory.
What This Means
This ruling gives the Uganda Law Society leadership breathing space to challenge Justice Nambayo’s earlier decision and assert that government oversight, through the Attorney General, is irrelevant and harmful to an independent legal profession that ought to be self-governing.
With the judicial review case now paused, focus shifts to the Court of Appeal, where ULS is expected to argue that the exclusion of the Attorney General from the case filed by the duo (Tumukunde and Byamaziima) undermines the complete and effectual resolution of all questions posed in the challenged Executive order.
If you would like your article/opinion to be published on Uganda’s most authoritative news platform, send your submission on: [email protected]. You can also follow DailyExpress on WhatsApp and on Twitter (X) for realtime updates.
