Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:44 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

28 Apr 2021

Employment And Labour [2021] UGIC 11

Musakiriza v African Vending Systems Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 72 of 2018)

Musakiriza v African Vending Systems Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 72 of 2018) [2021] UGIC 11 (28 April 2021)

Court: Industrial Court of Uganda
Case number: Labour Dispute Reference No. 72 of 2018
Judge: Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Tumusiime-Mugisha, J, Ebyau, Panel Member, Mubuuke, Panel Member

The court found that the respondent unlawfully terminated the claimant's employment by failing to provide a valid reason and proper notice, as required by the Employment Act and relevant case law. The evidence established that the claimant remained an employee of the respondent during his assignment in Cameroon, and the respondent could not evade responsibility for salary arrears. The claim for commission was denied due to lack of sufficient evidence. General damages were awarded for the inconvenience and hardship suffered by the claimant as a result of unlawful termination. Punitive damages…

Source excerpt

Unlawful Termination
Salary Arrears
General Damages
Commission Claims
Contractual Obligations

Read case analysis

15 Mar 2011

Commercial And Corporate [2011] UGHC 28

Wasukira & 2 Ors v Harmony Group Ltd (HCT-04-CV-CS-0040-2009)

Wasukira & 2 Ors v Harmony Group Ltd (HCT-04-CV-CS-0040-2009) [2011] UGHC 28 (15 March 2011)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: HCT-04-CV-CS-0040-2009
Judge: Musota, J

The suit is based on an unstamped commission agreement, which is inadmissible in evidence under Section 42 of the Stamps Act. The plaintiffs did not seek leave of court to pay the required stamp duty, rendering the agreement unenforceable. Furthermore, the 3rd plaintiff was not incorporated at the time the alleged contract was made, and the law does not permit a company to ratify or adopt contracts made prior to its incorporation. The pleadings do not demonstrate a legally protected interest or a valid cause of action against the defendant. Therefore, the suit is struck out for non-disclosure…