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
Tinkamanyire v Kihika & Another (Civil Application 34 of 2020) [2025] UGCA 84 (24 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for a certificate of importance, finding the proposed third appeal raised no matter of great public or general importance.
Butera v Mutalemwa (Civil Application 1 of 2020) [2022] UGSC 7 (1 March 2022)
The Supreme Court dismissed an application for a certificate of importance as out of time, finding it was filed 13 days late and no enlargement of time was sought.
Major (Rtd) Kakooza Mutale v Balisigara (Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2020) [2022] UGCA 3 (10 January 2022)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a slip application and a request for a certificate of importance to appeal further, finding no material error and no public-law issue.
Busulwa v Uganda (Criminal Application 14 of 2020) [2021] UGSC 11 (20 December 2021)
The Supreme Court of Uganda refused leave to pursue a third appeal, holding that the proposed issues about undated documents were not shown to raise public importance or justice concerns.
Ouma v Uganda (Criminal Application 17 of 2021) [2021] UGSC 50 (30 September 2021)
The Supreme Court dismissed Ouma Adea’s application for leave to file a third appeal, finding no properly shown question of public or general importance.
Atai v Uganda (Criminal Application 19 of 2020) [2021] UGSC 4 (28 September 2021)
The Supreme Court of Uganda denied a certificate of importance, finding the intended third appeal raised no matter of great public or general importance.
Musoke v Agard & 2 Others (Civil Application 37 of 2021) [2021] UGSC 51 (17 September 2021)
The Supreme Court held that the applicant did not have a competent Notice of Appeal, which is a mandatory condition for granting an interim stay of execution. The intended appeal to the Supreme Court was a third appeal, requiring a Certificate of Importance. The applicant had applied for such a certificate, but until it is granted, the notice of appeal is not validated and no competent appeal exists before the court. Without a competent Notice of Appeal, the court cannot consider the remaining conditions for interim stay, namely the existence of a substantive application and a serious threat…
Source excerpt
Nahabwe v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2020) [2021] UGSC 41 (20 August 2021)
The Supreme Court held that the question proposed by the applicant—whether the second appellate court can merely accept the conclusions of the first appellate court without adequately scrutinizing the evidence—is firmly settled by clear precedents. The law does not require the second appellate court to re-evaluate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless there is manifest error or lack of evidence. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the lower courts' findings does not raise a question of law of great public or general importance. There is no uncertainty in the law regarding id…
Source excerpt
Kato Bumali v Uganda [2020] UGSC 14 (26 June 2020)
The application before the Supreme Court improperly combines two distinct requests: extension of time to apply for a certificate of importance and the substantive application for the certificate itself. Under Rule 50(1), (2)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, a single Justice lacks jurisdiction to hear an application for a certificate of importance, which must be determined by a panel of at least three Justices. While the single Justice has jurisdiction to consider the extension of time, the consolidated nature of the application precludes partial determination. Furthermore, the procedural requir…
Source excerpt
Butera Edward v Mutalemwa Godfrey (Civil Application No. 0391 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 2069 (20 December 2019)
The Court of Appeal held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised questions of law of great public or general importance warranting a certificate of importance or leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The issues raised—whether general damages can be awarded under Order 36 CPR, whether relief not claimed for can be granted, and whether relief can be obtained from an illegality—have already been settled by the Supreme Court and are not novel or unsettled. The law is clear that a suit under summary procedure becomes ordinary upon grant of leave to defend, and that…
Source excerpt
