The High Court judge says he once corrected his own mistaken ruling after discovering he had misapplied the law, arguing that alleged errors in an earlier judgment do not automatically justify recusal.
High Court Judge Simon Peter Kinobe has recounted an error he made early in his judicial career, admitting that he once dismissed an appeal on an incorrect legal basis before reviewing and correcting his decision.
Kinobe made the revelation while declining to recuse himself from proceedings arising from an election petition challenging the election of Budiope East MP Moses Magogo.
The judge explained that he had dismissed an appeal after concluding that the record of proceedings had not been attached, mistakenly applying a requirement he was accustomed to from his experience practising before the Court of Appeal.
“I made a ruling where I held that I dismissed an appeal on the basis that a record of proceedings had not been attached,” Kinobe said, explaining that he had assumed the same requirement applied to appeals before the High Court.
He later realised that he had misapplied the law, explaining that a High Court judge handling an appeal could examine the court file to determine whether the proceedings had been conducted properly.
“But the law is clear. In the High Court you don’t need a record. You ask for the file,” he said.
Kinobe said he revisited his decision after recognising the mistake, even though the lawyers involved had not prompted him to do so.
“After reading, I realized I had made a mistake. I called my own judgment and reviewed it,” he told the court.
The judge cited the experience to explain why an alleged error in an earlier judgment does not, by itself, constitute grounds for recusal. He said review proceedings provide a mechanism for courts to reconsider decisions where errors are alleged or identified.
“Our fidelity is not to our decisions. Our fidelity is not to the parties. We don’t care a lot about you. Our fidelity is to the law and the facts,” Kinobe said.
He maintained that a judge’s responsibility is to establish whether an error was made and apply the law accordingly, rather than treating criticism of an earlier decision as a personal challenge.
The remarks came as the court considered an application seeking Kinobe’s recusal from proceedings linked to the election petition involving Magogo. The applicant argued that alleged errors in the judge’s earlier decision created a reasonable fear of a miscarriage of justice.
Kinobe rejected the argument, saying the applicant had not demonstrated circumstances warranting his withdrawal under the applicable grounds for recusal.
He also referred to his earlier handling of Election Petition No. 18, explaining that his familiarity with the facts was relevant to the legal framework governing applications for review.
“In summation, you have not raised grounds for my recusal,” he said, adding that he would issue a formal written ruling setting out his reasons.
The judge said judicial officers must be prepared to acknowledge and correct errors when they identify them, rather than defend a previous decision simply because they made it.
His account of the earlier ruling illustrated his argument that alleged legal errors should be examined and addressed through established court procedures, rather than automatically treated as grounds for a judge’s withdrawal.
Kinobe said he would publish the formal ruling online, making his reasons available to the public.
The recusal application arose from Miscellaneous Application No. P0625 of 2026 involving Daniel Mulirire, the Electoral Commission, Ibrahim Yeko and Magogo, concerning the Budiope East Constituency election in Buyende District.