Uganda Case Law

Opiyo Otiiti v Kwezira (Misc Cause 15 of 2022)

Opiyo Otiiti v Kwezira (Misc Cause 15 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 262 (12 September 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause 15 of 2022

Judge

Okello, J

The court held that suits against judicial officers for acts or decisions taken in the exercise of judicial power are unmaintainable at law due to constitutional and statutory judicial immunity. Article 128(4) of the Constitution of Uganda provides absolute protection to judicial officers from any action or suit for acts or omissions in the exercise of judicial power. This immunity is reinforced by the Judicature Act and the Government Proceedings Act, which extend protection to persons executing judicial orders and exclude government liability for judicial acts. The Human Rights (Enforcement…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Immunity
• Human Rights Enforcement
• Judicial Independence
• Access To Court
• Frivolous Litigation

Abess v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 026/2018)

Abess v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 026/2018) [2022] AfCHPR 80 (23 June 2022)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 026/2018

Judge

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

The Court found that the Applicant repeatedly failed to comply with requests to submit supporting documents and respond to the Respondent State's submissions, despite multiple reminders and extensions. Proofs of delivery confirmed that the Applicant received all notifications. As a legal professional, the Applicant was expected to understand the importance of diligence in pursuing his case, including providing evidence and responding to procedural requests. The Applicant's persistent inaction and lack of justification for non-compliance constituted a failure to pursue his case within the mean…

Source excerpt

• Presidential Election Disqualification
• Judicial Impartiality
• Access To Court
• Constitutional Review
• Electoral Law

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No.5 of 2016) [2022] EACJ 14 (21 June 2022) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference No.5 of 2016

Judge

Masara PJ, Ngiye DPJ, Nyachae J, Nyawello J, Wejuli J

The East African Court of Justice held that this reference was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty and dismissed it without costs.

• Limitation Periods
• Right To Property
• Rule Of Law Obligations
• Access To Court
• Eacj
• Limitation-periods

John v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 049/2016)

John v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 049/2016) [2022] AfCHPR 78 (13 May 2022)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 049/2016

Judge

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

The Court determined that both parties failed to file their pleadings within the time granted and that new arguments and claims had been introduced after the closure of pleadings. In the interests of justice and pursuant to Rule 46(3) and Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, the Court exercised its discretion to reopen the pleadings, allowing both parties forty-five days to reply to the new submissions. The decision ensures procedural fairness and upholds the right to a fair trial by permitting both parties to address all relevant arguments before the Court renders its judgment.

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Death Penalty
• Access To Court
• Procedural Fairness

Ally v United Republic of Tanzania

Ally v United Republic of Tanzania [2021] AfCHPR 31 (3 August 2021)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Judge

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

The African Court struck out Ahmed Ally’s application after his release by presidential pardon and his failure to show any intention to continue the case.

• Right To Life
• Presidential Pardon
• Access To Court
• Diligence In Pursuit
• Striking Out Procedure
• Striking-out-procedure

Hamad and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 046/2020)

Hamad and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 046/2020) [2021] AfCHPR 45 (4 May 2021)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 046/2020

Judge

Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J

The African Court struck out the deceased first applicant from a multi-party application and renamed the case accordingly, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

• Striking Out Party
• Change Of Title
• Electoral Rights
• Access To Court
• Striking-out-party
• Change-of-title

Collectif Des Anciens Travailleurs De La Semico Tabakoto v Republic of Mali

Collectif Des Anciens Travailleurs De La Semico Tabakoto v Republic of Mali [2020] AfCHPR 12 (27 November 2020)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Judge

Aboud J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J

The African Court held it had jurisdiction over the application but found it inadmissible because the applicants’ representative lacked a valid mandate before the Court.

• Access To Court
• Right To Health
• Environmental Protection
• Legal Personality
• Effective Remedy
• Access-to-court

Mahok v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Application 20 of 2018)

Mahok v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Application 20 of 2018) [2019] EACJ 30 (5 December 2019) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 20 of 2018

Judge

Jundu JA, Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye JA, Ntezilyayo DPJ, Nyachae JA

The Court found that the Reference was not time-barred, as the impugned acts—failure to release the subject as required by the Revitalized Agreement and Republican Order, and the closure of bank accounts—occurred within two months of the filing. The Court held that the Applicant raised serious triable issues regarding alleged violations of constitutional and Treaty rights, including arbitrary detention and asset freezing. However, the Court determined that the Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury that could not be compensated by damages, particularly as the loss from business cl…

Source excerpt

• Arbitrary Detention
• Right To Fair Trial
• Freezing Of Assets
• Interim Injunctions
• Access To Court

Atugonza v Brig. Mugira & 5 Ors

Atugonza v Brig. Mugira & 5 Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2011) [2019] UGCC 10 (4 October 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2011

The Constitutional Court held that the question regarding the validity of the Judicature (Fundamental Rights and Freedom) (Enforcement Procedure) Rule SI 55 of 2008 had already been conclusively answered by the Supreme Court in Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2011, which found no contravention of Article 50(4) of the Constitution. The absence of specific procedural rules for enforcement of human rights does not bar litigants from accessing courts, as courts possess inherent powers to provide remedies under existing procedures. The file was ordered to be returned to the High Court for trial wit…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Fundamental Rights
• Access To Court
• Procedural Rules For Human Rights
• Judicature Rules
• Inherent Powers Of Court

Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Order) (Application 003/2014)

Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Order) (Application 003/2014) [2016] AfCHPR 32 (3 June 2016)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application 003/2014

Judge

Ben Achour J, Bossa J, Guissè J, Kioko J, Matusse J, Niyungeko J, Orė J, Ouguergouz J, Ramadhani P, Tambala J, Thompson VP

The Court held that the admission of amicus curiae is within its discretion and declined to reject the National Commission for the Fight Against Genocide. It found that the Respondent is obligated to facilitate access to the Applicant by her legal representatives and must refrain from infringing attorney-client privilege, including searching legal documents. The Court declined to order the Respondent to provide video conferencing facilities, citing lack of procedural rules and technical capacity. On the issue of document production, the Court found the Respondent's reasons for non-compliance…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Access To Court
• Attorney Client Privilege
• Amicus Curiae
• Procedural Fairness