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
Tibamwenda and 2 Others v Kachurokabo (Miscellaneous Application 41 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1036 (30 October 2024)
The High Court at Fort Portal stayed execution pending appeal, finding the applicants had shown appeal lodgment, threatened loss, delay-free filing, and offered security for costs.
Tigambirwa v Kazooba (HCT-01-CV-MA 68 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1026 (25 October 2024)
The court found that the applicant had lodged a competent appeal as of right and that there was a serious and imminent threat of execution for taxed costs, which would inflict substantial loss and render the appeal nugatory if not stayed. The application for stay was made without unreasonable delay, as it was filed immediately upon notice to show cause for execution. The court determined that security for costs, rather than the entire decretal sum, was appropriate to avoid stifling the appeal. The applicant was ordered to deposit 20% of the taxed costs as security within 60 days. The court al…
Source excerpt
Kiiza v Bazalirwaki (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1047 (17 October 2024)
The High Court at Fort Portal dismissed an application for stay of execution, finding the applicant proved an appeal but not a concrete or imminent threat of execution.
Sanlam General Insurance Uganda Limited v Finance Trust Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 03 of 2024) [2024] UGIAT 6 (4 October 2024)
The Tribunal stayed execution pending appeal, finding the applicant had lodged a notice of appeal, shown substantial loss, and offered reasonable security.
Mugisa Florence Kyaligonza & 2 Ors v Jane Rose Tusiime (Administrator of the (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 409 (31 May 2024)
The High Court at Fort Portal dismissed an application for stay of execution on the ground that the caveat had already been vacated and the matter was overtaken by events.
Wandera v Baguma (HCT-01-CV-CS 36 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 110 (27 March 2023)
The High Court granted a stay of execution pending appeal, conditional on the applicant depositing UGX 45,000,000 in court within three months.
Nyirabarore Vannis & Anor Vs Nyirakubanza Sarafina & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 0037 of 2018) [2018] UGCA 73 (3 September 2018)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda dismissed an application to extend time to file a memorandum of appeal, finding no proof of a valid notice of appeal or service.
Sadrudin v Kamya (Civil Application 15 of 2013) [2014] UGSC 410 (21 August 2014)
The Supreme Court dismissed an application to strike out an appeal, holding the respondent filed within time after certified proceedings were collected.
Kyalukinda Turinawe and 4 Others v Eng. Turinawe and Another (Civil Application 27 of 2010) [2012] UGSC 18 (25 January 2012)
The Supreme Court found that the applicants had established sufficient reason for extension of time to file their appeal, primarily due to the negligence, mistake, error, or omission of their former advocates. The evidence showed that the applicants instructed their lawyers, who filed a Notice of Appeal and requested proceedings, but failed to take further steps to lodge the appeal. The respondents did not provide credible evidence to refute the applicants' account or demonstrate that the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct. The court reiterated that lay litigants should not be penaliz…
Source excerpt
Kaderbhai v Shamsherali (Civil Application 20 of 2008) [2008] UGSC 25 (17 October 2008)
The Supreme Court found that the applicants' failure to serve the Notice of Appeal and the letter requesting the record of proceedings on the opposite party was due to inadvertence of counsel, not deliberate neglect. The applicants demonstrated consistent interest in pursuing their appeal, and the subject matter—a commercial property of significant value—would result in grave injustice if their appeal was denied on a technicality. The court distinguished this case from precedents where applicants were not vigilant or failed to show prejudice. Applying Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules and rel…
Source excerpt
