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
Twinomujuni v Trust Hands of Hope Limited (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 38 (27 March 2025)
The High Court set aside proceedings and a ruling on an out-of-time request to correct an arbitral award, but upheld the original award and found no bias.
Cairo Bank Uganda Limited v Cads Ventures Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 48 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 150 (29 May 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the statutory grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under section 34(2)(a) and (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicant's complaints amounted to a disguised appeal, seeking a re-evaluation of evidence rather than demonstrating any procedural or substantive irregularity as required by law. The arbitrator considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and based her decision on the contract and applicable legal principles. Dissatisfaction with the outcome or claims of partiality unsupported by persuasive eviden…
Source excerpt
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Aya Investments Uganda Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application 1104 of 2023) [2023] UGCA 289 (1 November 2023)
The Court of Appeal struck out an appeal as filed out of time and refused an informal extension request. It also noted there was no appeal right against the Section 34 ruling.
Mbale Resort Hotel (U) Limited v Babcon (U) Limited (Taxation Civil Reference 18 of 2018) [2018] UGSC 60 (20 September 2018)
The Supreme Court of Uganda increased taxed instruction fees from UGX 3 million to UGX 16 million and allowed VAT after finding a VAT certificate on record.
Kavuma & 2 Ors v Nantamu & 2 Ors (HCT-00-CC-MA 572 of 2011) [2013] UGCommC 88 (13 May 2013)
The High Court held that a time-barred application to set aside an arbitral award could not be cured by joinder, and dismissed the applicants’ motion with costs.
Seyani Brothers & Company Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Civil Application No. 6 of 2009) [2009] UGCA 60 (10 September 2009)
The Court held that section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act provides a general right of appeal from orders of the High Court to the Court of Appeal unless expressly excluded by statute. Orders made by the High Court under statutes other than the Civil Procedure Act, such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, are appealable unless a specific statutory provision excludes such appeals. The authorities cited, including Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and another, Denis Bireije v Attorney General, and Pius Niwagaba v Law Development Centre, establish that the jurisdiction of the Court…
Source excerpt
Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds Uganda Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 610 of 1997) [1999] UGHC 62 (16 June 1999)
Appeal against taxation of costs dismissed; the High Court upheld instruction fees based on a determinable subject matter and awarded costs to the respondent.
Oil Seeds (U ) Ltd v Udanda Development Bank (Civil Appeal 23 of 1995) [1997] UGSC 10 (14 April 1997)
The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly declined jurisdiction to review an arbitration award and should have considered the objection on its merits.
Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited v Kanabolic Group of Companies Limited (Civil Appeal 57 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 33 (16 August 1996)
The Supreme Court held that the application to set aside the arbitrator's award was barred by res judicata, as the issue of illegality could and should have been raised in the previous application challenging the award. Both applications were brought under the same statutory provisions and sought the same relief. The court further found that the arbitrator had the power to extend the time for making the award under Schedule 1 to the Arbitration Act, which was implied in the submission, and therefore no illegality occurred. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, and the orders of the High…
Source excerpt
National Insurance Corporation v Arconsults Architects (Arbitration Cause 4 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 28 (27 April 1992)
The court found that the arbitrator acted within his authority in considering both Fee Note 1 and Fee Note 1A, as the latter had been submitted before the arbitrator's appointment and formed part of the dispute. The applicant's conduct amounted to acceptance of the scale and mode of fees, waiving the need for formal written acceptance. The arbitrator did not exceed his mandate nor act outside the conditions of engagement for architects. The award of costs and arbitration fees was lawful under Rule 9 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act. No misconduct or improper procurement was establ…
Source excerpt
