Uganda Case Law

Buu -Lepu Foundation Limited v Lira City Council (Application 15 of 2025)

Buu -Lepu Foundation Limited v Lira City Council (Application 15 of 2025) [2025] UGPPDPAAT 16 (14 July 2025)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 15 of 2025

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba, cyrus Titus Aomu, penal member

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's Accounting Officer failed to make and communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period following receipt of the Applicant's administrative review complaint. Under section 106(8) and 115(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the Applicant was required to file its application within ten days from the expiry of the period for the Accounting Officer to make a decision. The Tribunal determined that the last permissible day for filing was June 16, 2025, as June 15, 2025, fell on a Sunday. The Applicant filed its applica…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Administrative Timelines
• Access To Information
• Standstill Period
• Natural Justice

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015) [2025] UGCC 5 (27 June 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JCC, Obura, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC, Kazibwe, JCC, Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC

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

• Sub Judice Rule
• Freedom Of Expression
• Access To Information
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights

HUB for Investigative Media & Another v Attorney General

HUB for Investigative Media & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 3 of 2020) [2024] UGCC 25 (12 December 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition 3 of 2020

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JA, Luswata, JA, Kihika ,JA, Kazibwe, JA, Asa Mugenyi , JA/JCC

The court held that the requirement to pay a fee for access to public officers' asset declarations under Sections 7(2) and 7(9) of the Leadership Code (Amendment) Act, 2017 does not amount to discrimination or an unconstitutional limitation on the right to access information, as the fee is universally applicable and not inordinately high. However, the court found that Section 11(4) (formerly Section 7(4)) of the Leadership Code Act, which grants the Inspectorate of Government broad discretion to restrict access to declarations, is inconsistent with Articles 41(1), 21(1), 29(1)(a), and 43(c) o…

Source excerpt

• Access To Information
• Leadership Code
• Public Officer Declarations
• Right To Privacy
• Freedom Of Expression

Namale & Another v Horeb Services Uganda Limited & Another

Namale & Another v Horeb Services Uganda Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 21 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 152 (7 October 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 21 of 2023

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court held that both applicants had locus standi to bring the application for enforcement of human rights under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, as locus standi is based on the claim of violation, not relationship or direct interest. The pleadings disclosed a cause of action against both respondents, as the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act permits joining parties where liability is uncertain. The 1st respondent, as the licensed recruitment agency, bore primary responsibility for the safety and welfare of Namutamba Milly, and its failure to operate withi…

Source excerpt

• Human Rights Enforcement
• Migrant Worker Protection
• Right To Life
• Corporate Liability
• Access To Information
• Damages Assessment

Mugabo & 14 Others v Kabarole District Local Government

Mugabo & 14 Others v Kabarole District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause 19 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 847 (29 August 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 19 of 2023

Judge

Mugabo, J

The application for mandamus became moot after the respondent provided the requested documents or explained their loss, and the applicants could not proceed further. The court found that although there was delay, the respondent demonstrated willingness to comply and resolve the matter amicably. Applying the principle that costs follow the event unless otherwise ordered, and considering the spirit of reconciliation mandated by the Constitution, the court exercised its discretion to deny costs to both parties. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the circumstances that pr…

Source excerpt

• Access To Information
• Mandamus
• Public Authority Accountability
• Costs Award

Baku Obudra v Attorney General (Misc Cause 264 of 2020)

Baku Obudra v Attorney General (Misc Cause 264 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 130 (24 April 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause 264 of 2020

Judge

Nambayo, J

The court found no evidence that the Applicant was discriminated against or denied equal protection under Article 21, nor that his right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1) was violated, as there was no hearing within the constitutional meaning. The right to practice his profession under Article 40(2) was not infringed, as failure to shortlist did not prevent him from continuing his legal practice. The court held that the Judicial Service Commission acted on adverse reports from the Law Council and Uganda Law Society, and the Applicant was subsequently shortlisted after clearance. Allegatio…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Appointments
• Right To Fair Hearing
• Equality And Non Discrimination
• Access To Information
• Professional Practice Rights

Male H.Mabirizi K.Kiwanuka Vs Uganda

Male H.Mabirizi K.Kiwanuka Vs Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCRD 27 (23 June 2022)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2022

Judge

Muwata, J

The court held that denial of internet access to a convict does not violate the right to a fair hearing, as neither the Constitution nor the Prisons Act provides for such a right. The restriction is justified by security concerns and the objectives of imprisonment. The applicant has alternative means to access information, such as the prison library and legal clinic, or through a legal clerk. The court order dated 7th April 2022 was directed specifically to the O/C Kitalya Mini Max and ceased to have effect upon the applicant's transfer to Luzira prison. There is no basis to hold the responde…

Source excerpt

• Prisoners Rights
• Fair Hearing
• Contempt Of Court
• Access To Information

Omony T/a Omony Consulting Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause No. 234 of 2020)

Omony T/a Omony Consulting Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause No. 234 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 70 (7 April 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause No. 234 of 2020

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that although the Applicant's application for judicial review was filed out of time, sufficient cause was established due to the Covid-19 lockdown, and thus enlargement of time was granted. However, on the substantive issue, the court held that the Respondent, Uganda Revenue Authority, was legally justified in refusing to disclose the requested information. The information sought was protected by confidentiality provisions under Section 47 of the Tax Procedures Code Act 2014 and relevant sections of the Access to Information Act 2005, as well as constitutional protections of p…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Access To Information
• Statutory Interpretation
• Public Body Decision Making

Baku Raphael Obudura v Attorney General

Baku Raphael Obudura v Attorney General (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 109 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 97 (1 July 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 109 of 2021

Judge

Nambayo, J

The court held that the documents sought by the Applicant were supplied in confidence by third parties such as the Law Council, Uganda Law Society, and the Inspectorate of Government. Disclosure of such information without the consent of these third parties would prejudice the future supply of similar information, which is essential for the Judicial Service Commission to perform its constitutional mandate. Furthermore, Section 16 of the Judicial Service Act prohibits disclosure of communications between the Judicial Service Commission and the President without written consent from the Chairpe…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Access To Information
• Judicial Service Commission Proceedings
• Fair Hearing Rights

African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15 Others (Represented by FOI Attorneys) v Algeria & 27 Others (Communication 742 of 2020)

African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15 Others (Represented by FOI Attorneys) v Algeria & 27 Others (Communication 742 of 2020) [2021] ACHPR 11 (26 April 2021)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 742 of 2020

The African Commission declined to seize a complaint alleging unlawful internet shutdowns across 28 States, finding the allegations too vague and unsupported.

• Freedom Of Expression
• Internet Shutdowns
• Access To Information
• Freedom Of Assembly
• Freedom Of Association
• Internet-shutdowns