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
Sewanyana v Wakiso District Council (Labour Dispute Reference 23 of 2017) [2023] UGIC 98 (16 June 2023)
The Industrial Court overruled a preliminary objection that the claim was served out of time, finding the relevant notice was served within 21 days of issue.
Sports View Hotel Limited and Another v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 679 of 2019) [2022] UGHCLD 130 (2 August 2022)
The High Court held that the suit abated because the plaintiff failed to take out summons for directions within 28 days after the last reply was filed.
Wasige Wamudanya V Adidwa and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 153 (20 May 2022)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge exercised his discretion judiciously in refusing the amendment to the petition. The court found that the strict timelines and procedural requirements governing election petitions under the Parliamentary Elections Act and the relevant rules are intended to ensure diligence and avoid delays. Allowing the amendment would have resulted in a new petition outside the statutory time limit, fundamentally altering the cause of action and prejudicing the respondents. The court agreed that the Civil Procedure Rules may be applied to fill gaps in electoral pr…
Source excerpt
Gold Beverages (U) Limited v Muhangura & Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 674 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 126 (29 May 2020)
The court found that the applicant, as plaintiff, sought to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution. The applicable law, Order 17 Rule 5 CPR, does not provide for reinstatement of a suit dismissed for want of prosecution at the instance of the plaintiff in the same court. The only remedies available to such a plaintiff are to appeal the dismissal order or to file a fresh suit, subject to limitation periods. The court distinguished between dismissals for want of prosecution and ex parte dismissals, noting that the latter provides a remedy for defendants under Order 9 Rule 27 CPR, which d…
Source excerpt
Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib and Another (Civil Appeal 9 of 1993) [1993] UGSC 48 (25 November 1993)
The Supreme Court of Uganda held that different Civil Procedure Rules apply to setting aside ex parte judgments, and that this application belonged under Rule 24, not Rule 9.
Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani [1993] UGSC 19 (24 November 1993)
The Supreme Court held that there are specific provisions in Ugandan law governing applications to set aside ex parte judgments, namely Order 9 Rules 9 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that the legal principles applicable to these two rules are different: Rule 9 grants the court broad discretion to set aside judgments entered under certain preceding rules, while Rule 24 requires the applicant to show sufficient cause for not appearing at the hearing. The ex parte judgment in this case was entered after a hearing under Order 18 Rule 1, not under the rules referenced in Rule…
Source excerpt
Yusuf v Kioko (Civil Case No. 1072 of 1951) [1951] EACA 332 (1 January 1951)
The court dismissed the suit because the plaintiff failed to appear in person or by recognized agent, and the relevant procedure rule was treated as mandatory.
