Uganda Case Law

Faridah Nakazibwe v Attorney General

Faridah Nakazibwe v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 15 of 2019) [2024] UGCC 28 (11 March 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition 15 of 2019

Judge

Kiryabwire, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC, Gashirabake, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC, Kihika, JA /JCC

The core issue was whether the Media Council Disciplinary Committee is a subordinate court under the Constitution or an administrative body. The Court found that the Committee, as established by the Press and Journalists Act, lacks the characteristics of a subordinate court: its members are not required to have judicial qualifications, its procedures and remedies are administrative in nature, and its primary function is regulatory rather than judicial. The Court relied on constitutional interpretation and precedent, particularly the Supreme Court's guidance that the classification of courts d…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Media Regulation
• Administrative Tribunals
• Subordinate Courts
• Constitutional Interpretation

Adelakoun and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 012/2021)

Adelakoun and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 012/2021) [2023] AfCHPR 48 (4 December 2023)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 012/2021

Judge

Aboud P, Adjei J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko VP, Tchikaya J

The Court found that the Applicants failed to exhaust available local remedies, specifically the remedy before the Constitutional Court of Benin, which is considered effective and expeditious. The Applicants' arguments regarding delays and lack of impartiality were unsubstantiated and did not demonstrate that local remedies were unavailable or ineffective. As exhaustion of local remedies is a mandatory admissibility requirement under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, and the Applicants did not meet this requirement, the Court declared the application inadmissible. T…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Internet Shutdown
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
• Admissibility Requirements

Kagulire & Another v Uganda

Kagulire & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 75 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 182 (21 July 2023)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Appeal 75 of 2022

Judge

Mutonyi, J

The appeal was allowed because the trial Chief Magistrate erred in law and fact by admitting and relying on electronic evidence and exhibits obtained in violation of Section 28 of the Computer Misuse Act, which mandates a search warrant for seizure of computer systems. The prosecution failed to prove all essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt, relying on insufficient, uncorroborated, and speculative evidence. No technical evidence was adduced to demonstrate actual interception or fraudulent use of international calls, nor was there proof of financial loss or tax evasion…

Source excerpt

• Computer Misuse Act
• Search And Seizure
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Electronic Fraud
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Circumstantial Evidence

Human Rights Network For Journalists Ltd and Another v Attorney General

Human Rights Network For Journalists Ltd and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2018) [2023] UGCC 97 (17 March 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2018

Judge

Monica K. Mugenyi, JCC, Gashirabake, JCC, Madrama, JCC, Musoke, JCC, Egonda-Ntende, JCC

The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provisions of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 do not violate the constitutional rights to freedom of the press, property, equality, or fair administrative treatment. The Minister's oversight of the Uganda Communications Commission and related bodies is aimed at ensuring accountability and efficiency, and does not amount to unconstitutional interference. Licensing requirements for disposal of radio communications apparatus, while constituting a limitation on property rights, are reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society.…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Media Regulation
• Administrative Oversight
• Property Rights
• Non Discrimination
• Licensing Requirements

Akena & 3 Others v Uganda Communications Commission & 3 Others

Akena & 3 Others v Uganda Communications Commission & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 84 of 2019) [2023] UGHC 340 (21 February 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 84 of 2019

Judge

Ajiji, J

The court found that the questions raised by the applicants regarding the compliance of sections 29, 31, 41, and the 4th schedule of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 with the East African Community Treaty could be fully addressed by the High Court itself. The court emphasized that Article 34 of the EAC Treaty gives national courts discretion to refer matters to the EACJ only if it is necessary to enable them to give judgment. In this case, the court determined that there was no necessity to refer the matter for a preliminary ruling, as the issues could be competently resolved within the na…

Source excerpt

• Preliminary Reference
• Treaty Interpretation
• Media Regulation
• Jurisdiction Of National Courts

Airtel Ug Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 10 of 2019)

Airtel Ug Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 10 of 2019) [2022] UGTAT 16 (28 November 2022)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application No. TAT 10 of 2019

Judges

Akabway, Panel Member, Mugenyi, Chairperson

The Tribunal found that the VAT assessment of Shs. 643,114,709 was issued within the statutory five-year period under the VAT Act and that the applicant failed to provide proof of payment for the assessed output VAT, making it liable for the amount. The applicant's claim for input VAT credit of Shs. 1,288,219,863 was disallowed due to lack of proof of payment and discrepancies in invoice details, but the respondent admitted to input VAT credit of Shs. 124,971,481, which was awarded to the applicant. Regarding WHT, the Tribunal held that the International Telecommunications Regulations (Melbou…

Source excerpt

• Vat Assessment
• Withholding Tax On Roaming
• Input Tax Credit
• International Treaty Interpretation
• Tax Limitation Periods

Adelakoun and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 012/2021)

Adelakoun and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 012/2021) [2022] AfCHPR 2 (24 March 2022)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 012/2021

Judge

Aboud P, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko J, Tchikaya VP

The African Court dismissed an application for provisional measures after finding no sufficient proof of urgency, extreme gravity, or irreparable harm.

• Freedom Of Expression
• Internet Shutdown
• Provisional Measures
• Human Rights Protection
• Provisional-measures
• Freedom-of-expression

Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL) and 2 Others v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition No. 9 of 2014)

Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL) and 2 Others v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition No. 9 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 44 (23 July 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Consitutional Petition No. 9 of 2014

Judge

Kasule, Ag JCC, Monica K. Mugenyi, JCC, Kiryabwire, JCC, Musoke, JCC, Obura, JCC

The Court held that the impugned sections of the Press and Journalist Act Cap 105, including those relating to registration, licensing, accreditation, disciplinary measures, and ministerial powers, are not inconsistent with Articles 28(12), 29(1)(a) and (e), and 40(2) of the Constitution. The provisions are sufficiently defined, prescribe clear penalties, and provide minimal guidelines for enforcement, thus avoiding arbitrary application. The regulatory framework, including the composition and accountability of the Media Council, meets international standards for independence and transparency…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Media Regulation
• Journalist Licensing
• Public Morality
• Fair Hearing
• Association Rights

Celtel Uganda Limited t/a Zain Uganda v Karungi

Celtel Uganda Limited t/a Zain Uganda v Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 93 (20 July 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013

Judge

Monica K. Mugenyi, JA, Kasule, Ag JA, Kiryabwire, JA

The Court of Appeal held that second appeals in civil matters are strictly limited to points of law as mandated by Sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71. Grounds 2 to 5 of the appeal were found to be of mixed law and fact and thus incompetent. Ground 1 was struck out for failing to specify the alleged error in law, contravening Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The Court relied on binding precedent to reinforce the mandatory nature of these procedural requirements. As all grounds of appeal were struck out, the entire appeal was rendered incompetent and was accordingly…

Source excerpt

• Appeal Ground Requirements
• Second Appeal Law Only
• Privacy Breach
• Court Order Authenticity

Bukenya Church Ambrose v Attorney General

Bukenya Church Ambrose v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2010) [2021] UGHCCD 71 (7 July 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2010

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court held that the right to freedom of speech, expression, and media under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and may be lawfully limited by legislation that is reasonable, justifiable, and pursues a legitimate aim. The Electronic Media Act prescribes a licensing regime for broadcasters to ensure orderly and accountable use of the public spectrum, which is a scarce resource. The applicant and associated radio stations failed to obtain the necessary outside broadcasting licences and did not comply with minimum broadcasting standards, despite repeated warnings and opportu…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Broadcasting Licensing
• Constitutional Limitations
• Media Regulation
• Public Participation
• Minimum Broadcasting Standards