Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:43 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

2 Apr 2024

Employment And Labour [2024] UGIC 30

Katamba v I.S and L Advocates and Another (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 169 of 2023)

Katamba v I.S and L Advocates and Another (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 169 of 2023) [2024] UGIC 30 (2 April 2024)

Court: Industrial Court of Uganda
Case number: Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 169 of 2023
Judge: Tumusiime-Mugisha, J, Katende, Panel Member, Nyachwo panel member, Bwire, Panel Member

The court found that Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations only bars an advocate from acting as counsel in a matter where they are required as a witness. In this case, the applicant failed to demonstrate that S&L Advocates or any of its lawyers are listed or required as witnesses in the main claim. The court further held that the existence of advocate-client privilege between S&L Advocates and MTN (Uganda) Limited protects their communications, and there was no evidence of fraud, crime, or exceptional circumstances to warrant compelling testimony or restraining the…

Source excerpt

Conflict Of Interest
Advocate Client Privilege
Professional Conduct Of Advocates
Right To Counsel Of Choice
Independence Of Counsel

Read case analysis

14 Jul 2020

Civil Procedure [2020] UGCommC 22

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP v Wabyona

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 369 of 2020) [2020] UGCommC 22 (14 July 2020)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: Miscellaneous Application No. 369 of 2020
Judge: Adonyo, J

The court held that the mandatory procedure for service of summons outside the jurisdiction, as set out in Order 5 rules 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, was not followed by the Respondent. No application for leave to serve out of jurisdiction was made or granted, and thus the purported service of summons on the Applicant, a UK-based law firm, was irregular and invalid. Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019, which allows for electronic service, does not override the requirement to first obtain leave of court to serve out of jurisdiction. Since proper service was not effected, the court's jurisdic…