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
Onaba George v Ruth Inyalio (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2017) [2025] UGCA 230 (7 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal set aside a High Court ruling made without a proper hearing, reinstated the civil suit, and remitted it for hearing.
The Microfinance Support Centre Ltd v Kurbstone Investment (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 0388 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 122 (5 June 2025)
The court found that the tenancy agreement contained clear and effective dispute resolution clauses, with one clause mandating that disputes not resolved amicably must be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap 4. The parties attempted amicable resolution but failed, triggering the obligation to arbitrate. The court distinguished the present case from Attorney General v. Networth Consults Ltd., holding that the arbitration agreement was not ambiguous or incapable of being performed. Pursuant to section 5(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,…
Source excerpt
Asiimwe T/A Assy Lodges v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 21 of 2025) [2025] UGTAT 3 (21 March 2025)
The Tribunal granted an extension of time to appeal, treating the ADR decision as the relevant taxation decision and finding sufficient cause for delay.
CIC Africa (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 275 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 15 (6 October 2023)
The Tribunal held the tax review application was time barred because ADR did not suspend the statutory filing deadline, and dismissed the case with costs.
Opio v Lamunu (High Court Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 280 (18 August 2023)
The High Court granted the applicant extension of time to file a written statement of defence, holding that the omission was counsel’s mistake and the suit should proceed inter partes.
Conta Plast Ventures Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2023) [2023] UGTAT 16 (3 August 2023)
The Tribunal found that the applicant's reliance on the pursuit of ADR as a ground for extension of time to file an application for review was not supported by law. Regulation 4(3) and 4(4) of the Tax Procedures Code (Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure) Regulations explicitly provide that the time for filing an application with the Tribunal is not affected by ADR proceedings. The statutory timelines under S. 16(1)(c) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and S. 25(1) of the Tax Procedures Code Act are substantive and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal also held that the respondent's…
Source excerpt
Asiimwe and Another v Round Off International Limited (Civil Suit 576 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 84 (27 April 2023)
The court held that, although the High Court possesses unlimited jurisdiction, the Employment Act, 2006 specifically vests initial jurisdiction over employment disputes in the Labour Officer. The statutory framework and judicial policy require that such matters be first referred to the Labour Officer for resolution, and only escalated to higher courts if necessary. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid salary, medical bills, and damages for unfair termination fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Labour Officer as per section 93 of the Act. The existence of alternative…
Source excerpt
Opio v Lamunu (HCMA 192 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 322 (18 August 2022)
The High Court granted an extension of time to file a written statement of defence, finding the omission was due to counsel’s mistake and should not prejudice the applicant.
Busenvi Enterprise Limited v Makindye Ssabagabo Municipal Council (Civil Suit No. 400 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCD 93 (1 July 2022)
The High Court overruled a preliminary objection seeking referral of a contract dispute to arbitration, holding that a formal application and evidence were required.
Omer farming company Ltd Vs Rehoboth Agricultural Management services Ltd (MISC. CAUSE NO. 21 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 116 (14 June 2019)
The court found that the debt claimed by the respondent was not ascertained, as the applicant genuinely disputed the sums claimed and raised substantial counterclaims regarding services not rendered and payments already made. The statutory demand was therefore improperly issued in circumstances where the existence and quantum of the debt were in dispute and required resolution through ordinary litigation or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as provided in the parties' agreement. The court emphasized that insolvency proceedings are not intended to establish rights but to enforce them,…
Source excerpt
