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
Ntambara v Rukiga SACCO (Civil Appeal 15 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 159 (28 February 2024)
The High Court struck out an appeal for incompetence, holding that leave was required before appealing against a magistrate’s refusal to stay execution.
Kibibu Engineering Co. Ltd v Kolin Insaat Turizim Sanayi Ticaret (Miscellaneous Application No. 330 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 80 (20 May 2016)
The High Court refused to order security for payment in support of an arbitration-related application, finding the respondent had sufficient assets in Uganda.
Oil Seeds (U) Limited v Uganda Development Bank (Civil Appeal 9 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 35 (22 December 2010)
The Supreme Court held that the arbitration award of Shs. 2,882,400,000/= in favour of the appellant became unenforceable due to the voluntary settlement agreement entered into by both parties and endorsed by the Registrar. The settlement expressly resolved all disputes arising from the arbitration, including both the claim for Shs. 1,023,644,800/= and the award of Shs. 2,882,400,000/=. The appellant and its lawyers received the agreed payments, and the appellant was estopped from seeking further enforcement of the award or interest. The court found that, under the repealed Arbitration Act an…
Source excerpt
Uganda National Examination Board v Mparo General Contractors Ltd (Civil Application 23 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 40 (27 June 2003)
The Court of Appeal struck out a stay-of-execution application as incompetent because the High Court had already granted stay and Rule 41(1) required the application to be made first there.
Oil Seeds Ltd v U.D Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 249 of 2001) [2003] UGCommC 127 (24 February 2003)
The High Court dismissed Oil Seeds Ltd’s bid to execute an arbitral award as a decree, holding that a binding settlement had already resolved the dispute.
Kanoblic Group of Companies Ltd vs Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No 34 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 12 (26 June 1998)
The Court of Appeal held that compound interest was not implicit in the arbitration award, as there was no express agreement or custom between the parties to allow it, nor was the relationship that of banker and customer. The award and pleadings were silent on compound interest, and the subsequent interpretation by counsel could not lawfully alter the terms of the award. The Registrar's certificate awarding compound interest was set aside as unlawful. The court found that only simple interest at 30% per annum was applicable, and recalculated the sums due, determining that the appellant had ov…
Source excerpt
Kanoblic Group of Companies Uganda Limited v Sugar Corporation Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 34 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 39 (26 June 1998)
The Court of Appeal held that an arbitration award for 30% interest was simple, not compound interest, and adjusted the sums payable accordingly.
Sugar Corporation Of Uganda Limited v Kanoblic Group Of Companies Limited (Miscellaneous Application 653 of 1996) [1997] UGHC 15 (26 February 1997)
The court found that the arbitration award expressly provided for interest at the rate of 30% per annum but did not specify that such interest should be compounded. There was no basis, either express or implied, for awarding compound interest. The Deputy Registrar erred in issuing a certificate of interest based on compound interest calculations. The total decretal amount and simple interest had already been paid to the respondent/judgment creditor from the security deposited into court, resulting in an excess payment. The respondent is not entitled to compound interest, and any excess paid m…
Source excerpt
Kanobolic Group of U Ltd v Sugar corporation U Ltd (Civil Application 40 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 21 (15 March 1996)
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed an application to strike out a notice of appeal, holding that service of the request for proceedings satisfied Rule 81(2).
