Uganda Case Law

Richard Kafumba v Attorney General and 3 others

Richard Kafumba v Attorney General and 3 others (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2015) [2021] UGCA 10 (1 April 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2015

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Madrama, JA, Kiryabwire, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in dismissing the application on procedural grounds that had already been conclusively determined by another judge in the same proceedings. The Court emphasized that Article 50 of the Constitution allows for enforcement of fundamental rights by any competent procedure, including notice of motion, and that absence of specific procedural rules cannot be used to deny access to justice. The High Court was functus officio on the procedural issue, and the subsequent judge had no jurisdiction to revisit or overturn the earlier ruling. The dismissal…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Fundamental Rights
• Compulsory Acquisition
• Adequate Compensation
• Procedural Irregularity
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Notice Of Motion

Kafumba v Attorney General and 3 Others

Kafumba v Attorney General and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2015) [2021] UGCA 31 (1 April 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2015

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Madrama, JA, Kiryabwire, JA

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal over a High Court ruling that had dismissed a constitutional-rights application on procedural grounds and remitted it for hearing on the merits.

• Enforcement Of Fundamental Rights
• Compulsory Acquisition
• Adequate Compensation
• Procedural Irregularity
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Representative Actions

Kafumba Vs Attorney General & 3 Ors (Misc. Application No. 002 of 2002)

Kafumba Vs Attorney General & 3 Ors (Misc. Application No. 002 of 2002) [2015] UGHCCD 149 (4 May 2015)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc. Application No. 002 of 2002

Judge

Namundi, J

The application, brought under Article 50 of the Constitution, seeks remedies that require proof by evidence and expert testimony, which cannot be adequately addressed through affidavit evidence in an application of this nature. The claims for compensation, damages, and allegations of fraud require a properly instituted ordinary suit, not a miscellaneous application. The applicant failed to plead fraud specifically, and the application does not comply with procedural requirements for representative actions or for the reliefs sought. The court lacks jurisdiction to grant the constitutional dec…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Acquisition
• Adequate Compensation
• Public Interest Litigation
• Representative Action
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Procedural Requirements

Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society & Ors v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No.103 of 2010)

Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society & Ors v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No.103 of 2010) [2013] UGHCLD 21 (27 February 2013)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

High Court Civil Suit No.103 of 2010

Judge

Aweri-Opio, J

The court found that while the Government's policy to restructure ranches and resettle the landless was lawful and in public interest, the process of acquisition of the Plaintiffs’ land did not comply with the constitutional and statutory requirements. The Government failed to follow the procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, including proper notification, inquiry, and prompt, fair, and adequate compensation. The compensation paid was based on an outdated valuation and did not reflect the market value at the time of payment, nor did it transparently include disturbance allowance. The Plai…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Acquisition
• Valuation Of Land
• Adequate Compensation
• Disturbance Allowance
• Injurious Affection
• Public Interest