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
Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Civil Application No. 275 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 224 (17 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal, finding no irreparable harm, no security, and an out-of-time notice of appeal.
Rushfah Trading Co. Ltd v Chongqing International Construction Corporation Ltd and Bi-Energy General Trading LLC (Misc. Application No. 210 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 218 (15 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to stay execution of a consent judgment, finding no sufficient cause and holding the request was barred by res judicata and abuse of process.
Prof. Murindwa Rutanga v Makerere University (Civil Application No. 55 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 229 (11 July 2025)
The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements by not filing an affidavit in reply, written submissions, or a memorandum of appeal within the prescribed time. The court found that this omission constituted material non-compliance with its directions and the rules governing appeals. The failure to take essential steps to prosecute the appeal rendered the notice of appeal incompetent and an abuse of court process. The court relied on established case law and procedural rules to conclude that the notice of appeal should be struck out, as the respondent did not fulfill…
Source excerpt
Buildnet Construction Materials and Hardware Limited v Fauzia Muwonge (Miscellaneous Application 1383 of 2025) [2025] UGHCFD 50 (27 June 2025)
The High Court vacated a stay of execution after the respondent failed to meet a deposit condition and granted the applicant vacant possession of the property.
Mbakira Asaph v Nkuba George William (Civil Suit 75 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 435 (18 June 2025)
The court applied the three-way test for the lis pendens rule: (1) whether there are two suits before a court with jurisdiction, (2) whether the parties are the same or litigating under the same title, and (3) whether the matter in issue is directly and substantially similar in both cases. The court found that both suits are before the High Court at Mbarara, involve the same parties on opposing sides, and concern the same suit land and core issue of ownership. The court held that the plaintiff, if aggrieved by the defendant's actions during the pendency of the earlier suit, should have sought…
Source excerpt
Dr. David Wilfred Ochan v Pauline Otika (Miscellaneous Application No. 104 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 419 (17 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to enlarge time and validate submissions after finding no credible explanation for a six-year delay and misuse of parallel remedies.
Tumuhimbise Crescent Tibarwesereka v Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 18 of 2024) [2025] UGHCACD 14 (16 June 2025)
The High Court granted the prosecution a final seven-day period to commit the applicant for trial, declining immediate dismissal for delay in a corruption case.
Kasenge Joseph v Jackson Kintu Kabanda (Civil Application 693 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 164 (30 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution, holding it was improperly brought after a conditional stay had already been sought and granted in the High Court.
Twinomujuni v Uganda (Criminal Revision 47 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 6 (25 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to stay criminal proceedings pending a civil suit, holding that section 208 of the Magistrates Courts Act does not apply to criminal cases.
Tirupati Development (U) Limited v Pramukh Construction Ltd and Kenya Commercial Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 3126 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 63 (24 February 2025)
The court found that the instant application seeks to review and set aside a ruling that previously declined to set aside a consent judgment. Both the previous and current applications involve the same parties and substantially the same matter—the validity of the consent judgment. The applicant's arguments regarding new evidence were found to be reiterations of issues already addressed and determined in the prior application. The court held that granting the orders sought would effectively set aside the consent judgment, which was already litigated and decided. Therefore, the application is b…
Source excerpt
