Uganda Case Law

Afedra Juliano v Uganda

Afedra Juliano v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 165 of 2018) [2025] UGCA 99 (10 April 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 165 of 2018

Judge

Kiryabwire, JA, Mulyagonja, JA, Luswata, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's reliance on self-defence and defence of property was not justified by the evidence. The deceased was unarmed, posed no immediate threat, and was shot at close range while lying down, which exceeded reasonable force. The appellant's actions, including planting items on the deceased, demonstrated malice aforethought. The trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and correctly convicted the appellant of murder. However, the appellate court found that the sentence of life imprisonment was harsh and manifestly excessive, given the appellant's youthf…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Self Defence
• Defence Of Property
• Sentencing Principles
• Malice Aforethought

Keirimasi Kedress v Vasta Nyamukazi and Others

Keirimasi Kedress v Vasta Nyamukazi and Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 355 (10 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2024

Judge

Emokor, J

The High Court of Uganda at Kabale extended time for the applicant to appeal, finding the delay was not so excessive as to bar relief in the interests of justice.

• Extension Of Time
• Appeal Out Of Time
• Sufficient Cause
• Mistake Of Counsel
• Extension-of-time
• Appeal-out-of-time

Roukia Kamugisha and Others v Denise Marie Emile Jaspers and Others

Roukia Kamugisha and Others v Denise Marie Emile Jaspers and Others (Civil Suit 3 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 357 (10 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 3 of 2021

Judge

Emokor, J

The High Court at Kabale has jurisdiction to hear the suit concerning the estate of William H. B. F Kamugisha, including property situated in Kampala, as the High Court's jurisdiction is not territorially limited by statute and the estate comprises properties in multiple locations. Section 33 of the Judicature Act mandates the avoidance of multiplicity of suits, allowing the court to determine all matters in controversy. The amended plaint discloses a cause of action against the sixth defendant, as the plaintiffs, being beneficiaries, have their rights affected by the caveat lodged by the six…

Source excerpt

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Cause Of Action
• Probate And Administration
• Caveats On Land
• Multiplicity Of Suits
• Beneficiary Rights

Abacus Parenteral Drugs Limited v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited

Abacus Parenteral Drugs Limited v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit 322 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 58 (9 April 2025)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 322 of 2022

Judge

Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, J

The court found the bank breached its online-banking contract, but held the plaintiff 80% contributorily negligent for weak internal controls. The plaintiff recovered UGX 339,556,644.

• Banker Customer Relationship
• Online Banking Liability
• Contractual Obligations
• Negligence
• Contributory Negligence
• Banker-customer-relationship

Uganda v Arugai

Uganda v Arugai (Criminal Session 14 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 163 (9 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session 14 of 2023

Judge

Nagawa, J

The High Court acquitted the accused at prima facie stage, holding that the complainant was 16 and the proper charge was defilement, not rape.

• Rape
• Defilement
• Consent In Sexual Offences
• Age Of Victim
• Burden Of Proof
• Prosecutorial Errors

Nalubowa v Nasazi

Nalubowa v Nasazi (Miscellaneous Application 162 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 288 (9 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 162 of 2024

Judge

Karemani Jamson K, J

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the memorandum of appeal was primarily due to the delay in obtaining a certified copy of the record of proceedings from the lower court, a factor outside her control. The court applied the principle that the time for lodging an appeal does not begin to run until the appellant receives the necessary proceedings. The memorandum of appeal was filed promptly after the record was available, rendering the application for leave to appeal out of time unnecessary. The court further exercised its inherent powers to validate service of the application…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Time
• Leave To Appeal Out Of Time
• Land Dispute
• Validation Of Appeal
• Procedural Delay

Orago v Uganda

Orago v Uganda (miscellaneous Application . 123 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 170 (8 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

miscellaneous Application . 123 of 2024

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

High Court bail ruling in a rape prosecution. The court accepted fixed abode and substantial sureties, but dismissed bail due to likely witness interference.

• Bail Application
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Surety Requirements
• Remand Periods
• Bail
• Criminal-procedure

Prime Finance Company Ltd v Ssali Babu Salim

Prime Finance Company Ltd v Ssali Babu Salim (Civil Suit 298 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 54 (8 April 2025)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 298 of 2023

Judge

Tumusiime Rubagumya, J

The High Court found the defendant indebted under a loan agreement, but reduced the agreed 10% monthly interest to 30% per annum as harsh and unconscionable.

• Loan Agreements
• Contractual Interest
• Money Lending Regulation
• Unconscionable Contracts
• Loan-agreements
• Contractual-interest

Elogu v Uganda

Elogu v Uganda (criminal Miscellaneous Application. 122 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 171 (8 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

criminal Miscellaneous Application. 122 of 2024

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

__CONTENT_FILTERED__

Source excerpt

• Content Filtered

Muwawu and Another v Sserwanga

Muwawu and Another v Sserwanga (Civil Appeal 22 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 162 (8 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 22 of 2022

Judge

Godfrey Himbaza, J

The court found that the taxing officer applied wrong principles in awarding manifestly excessive costs to the respondent, particularly for advocate fees and transport, without sufficient evidence or overt involvement of advocates on record. The appeal, though filed out of time, was validated as the appellants were not served with the taxation hearing notice and only became aware of the taxation upon issuance of a warrant of arrest. The affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, sworn by counsel without express authority from the appellants, was struck out as defective. Applying principles…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Bill Of Costs Revision
• Affidavit Authority
• Service Of Process
• Security For Costs