Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mbusa Philimon v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2022) [2025] UGCA 241 (21 July 2025)
The Constitutional Court held that a missing trial record causing over 12 years of appellate delay violated the petitioner’s fair hearing rights, but not equality rights.
Dennis Adim Enap v Uganda Peoples Congress and Hon. Jimmy James Michael Akena (Miscellaneous Cause 148 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 100 (18 July 2025)
The High Court held that UPC’s nomination of Jimmy James Michael Akena for a third party-presidency term was unlawful under the party constitution.
Women's Probono Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2021) [2025] UGCC 6 (10 July 2025)
The Constitutional Court of Uganda dismissed a challenge to polygamy-related laws, holding that the impugned provisions were constitutionally protected and not discriminatory.
Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 599 of 2021) [2025] UGHCCD 96 (4 July 2025)
The High Court partly allowed an application for discovery and inspection, ordering production of specified PPP documents but rejecting broad requests for further particulars.
Nduhukire Nasser alias Don Nasser v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 474 (30 June 2025)
The High Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction over alleged abduction and torture in Kenya, found no proof of unlawful rendition, and dismissed the application with costs.
Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015) [2025] UGCC 5 (27 June 2025)
The court held that Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it serves the legitimate objective of protecting the right to a fair hearing, which is non-derogable. The sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation under Article 43(1), balancing the right to freedom of expression and access to information against the need for fair and impartial judicial proceedings. However, Rule 73 of the Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits Parliament from discussing…
Source excerpt
XYZ v Republic of Benin (Application No. 058/2019) [2025] AfCHPR 22 (26 June 2025)
The Court found that the applicant did not exhaust available local judicial remedies, specifically a constitutional challenge before the Constitutional Court of Benin, prior to filing the application. The applicant's arguments regarding persecution, lack of judicial independence, and the effect of a prior constitutional challenge by another citizen were dismissed for lack of evidence and legal merit. The Court reiterated that the requirement to exhaust local remedies is assessed at the time the application is lodged, and subsequent developments do not absolve the applicant of this obligation.…
Source excerpt
XYZ v Republic of Benin (Application No. 009/2020) [2025] AfCHPR 26 (26 June 2025)
The Court held that it has material, personal, temporal, and territorial jurisdiction to hear the application, as the alleged violations concern rights protected by the Charter and the application was filed before the respondent State's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) Declaration took effect. However, the Court found the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The applicant did not seize the Constitutional Court of Benin, which is an available and effective remedy for constitutional and human rights claims, including challenges to the Amnesty Law. The Court reiterated…
Source excerpt
Soro and Others v Republic of Cote D'Ivoire (Application No. 012/2020) [2025] AfCHPR 24 (26 June 2025)
The African Court held it had jurisdiction but declared the application inadmissible because the applicants had not exhausted local remedies.
Ogwuche and Others v Republic of Cote D'Ivoire and Others (Application No. 005/2024) [2025] AfCHPR 19 (17 June 2025)
The African Court struck out non-qualifying parties, held that only six respondent States met jurisdictional requirements, and renamed the application accordingly.
