Uganda Case Law

Misango and Another v Attorney General and Another (HCT-00-CV-CS 0043/2005)

Misango and Another v Attorney General and Another (HCT-00-CV-CS 0043/2005) [2012] UGHC 431 (22 February 2012)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CV-CS 0043/2005

Judge

Elizabeth Musoke, J

The court found that the plaintiffs' entry and occupation of Maruzi Ranch were unauthorized and unlawful, as they lacked the necessary permission from Apac authorities and only had a movement permit from Masindi, which did not confer a right to settle in Apac. The purported quarantine was not validly imposed under the Animal Disease Act, as there was no verified outbreak or proper procedure followed. The evidence did not support the plaintiffs' claims of loss of cattle or property, as the cattle were peacefully ferried back to Masindi and no credible proof of destruction or loss was provided.…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Eviction Procedure
• Special Damages
• General Damages
• Animal Disease Control

Malinda and Another v The Queen

Malinda and Another v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1956; Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1956) [1956] EACA 18 (1 January 1956)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1956 ; Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1956

Judge

Edmonds J, O'Connor CJ

The court held that, following the repeal of section 8 of the Animal Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 1950, and in light of the definition of 'Ordinance' in the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, a breach of rule 21 of the Animal Diseases Rules is an offence against the Animal Diseases Ordinance for purposes of section 21, which permits forfeiture of animals. The penalty provision in rule 67 does not exclude forfeiture, and the absence of express inconsistency or exclusion means the forfeiture power applies. The court also clarified that where a penalty is provided by the Rules for…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Interpretation
• Subsidiary Legislation
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Animal Disease Control
• Penalty Provisions

Rex v Kinyua

Rex v Kinyua (Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1947) [1947] EACA 64 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1947

Judges

Coffey AgJ, Nihill, C.J

The court reduced an illegal fine for moving sheep and goats without a permit and held that imprisonment in default is governed by the Penal Code, not the offence’s substantive maximum.

• Sentencing Limits
• Imprisonment In Default
• Animal Disease Control
• Maximum Penalties
• Sentencing-limits
• Imprisonment-in-default