The subject of amicus curiae has also not generated any academic jurisprudence. Although the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has dealt with the subject, by way of making recommendations for express incorporation of the amicus procedure in the Civil Procedure Rules, the ULS has not made thorough investigations of the subject. Yet, the society has dealt with the subject together with the one of recusal of a judge as if the two are related. The recommendation of the Society runs as follows: “We recommend that the principles governing applications for recusal of a judicial officer and amicus curiae be incorporated in to the Civil Procedure Rules. The committee also recommends that a set of rules be formulated and incorporated in the rules for instances where a person wishes to submit an amicus brief for an unrepresented party in a suit.” Nonetheless, there are a number of cases which have dealt with the subject of amicus curiae and adopted some principles to be followed by courts. In these cases, the courts have used the definition of the term amicus curiae to determine the circumstances under which a person may be admitted as amicus. What is clear from these cases though is that they do not lay down elaborate principles that have to be followed.

Yet, the concept of amicus curiae has been defined in a narrow manner to mean a person who participates in the proceedings at the invitation of the Court. This has meant one cannot apply to participate in a case as amicus curiae; it is only court which can on its own initiative invite any person it thinks can assist in the case as amicus. This contrast with the South African procedure, which has illustrated above allows any person to apply to court to be admitted in a case as amicus curiae.

UNITED STATES

This question has also been considered by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Florida v. Georgia, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 478 (1854). In that case, the Attorney – General of the United States sought to be heard in a case, on appeal, where the interests of the Federation were likely to be compromised. The Court considered the familiar practice of hearing the Attorney – General on behalf of the State, in suits between individuals involving Page 13 of 31 matters of public interest; and if recognized that the Federation would be adversely affecte