Uganda Case Law

Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph

Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal 12 of 2014) [2018] UGSC 38 (2 August 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 12 of 2014

Judge

Arach-Amoko, JSC, Tumwesigye, JSC, Katureebe, CJ, Mwangusya, JSC, Mwondha, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient reason for the inordinate five-month delay in filing his appeal, as required by Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The Court affirmed that Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not dispense with compliance with procedural rules, but rather cautions against undue regard to technicalities where substantive justice would be denied. The appellant's repeated litigation on the same facts, refusal to pay security for costs, and inability to satisfy the 1995 decree prejudiced the respondent and did not justify further exten…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Time
• Security For Costs
• Res Judicata
• Application Of Article 126
• Procedural Compliance

Obai Vs Ariongo (HCT-04-CV-MA-314-2014)

Obai Vs Ariongo (HCT-04-CV-MA-314-2014) [2015] UGHCCD 100 (28 July 2015)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-04-CV-MA-314-2014

The High Court of Uganda at Mbale dismissed an application to review and set aside earlier orders, finding no sufficient reason under Order 46 CPR and rejecting reliance on Article 126(2)(e).

• Review Of Court Orders
• Sufficient Reason For Review
• Abuse Of Process
• Application Of Article 126
• Clean Hands Doctrine
• Civil-procedure

Francis Brake Lubega v Barnabas Taremwa (HCT-00-CC-MA 421 of 2008)

Francis Brake Lubega v Barnabas Taremwa (HCT-00-CC-MA 421 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 52 (4 February 2009)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-MA 421 of 2008

The application was brought under the wrong rule (Order 6 rule 18 instead of rule 19), but the procedure (Chamber Summons) was correct for an amendment of pleadings. The error in quoting the wrong rule is a technicality that does not cause injustice to the respondent. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution empowers the court to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Precedent supports the position that procedural defects may be cured if no injustice results. Therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled, and the application is allowed to proceed on its merit…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Procedural Irregularity
• Application Of Article 126
• Striking Out Unnecessary Matter