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
Alliance One Tobacco v Yasin and 5 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2020) [2021] UGIC 49 (21 September 2021)
The Industrial Court overruled a preliminary objection, holding that a knowledgeable company employee may swear an affidavit and that the leave application was not time-barred.
Alliance One Tobacco v Yassin and 5 Others (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 169 of 2020) [2021] UGIC 109 (21 September 2021)
The Industrial Court of Uganda overruled a preliminary objection, holding that a knowledgeable company employee could swear an affidavit and that leave to appeal on facts was not time-barred.
M.K Creditors Ltd v Kazooba (Miscellaneous Application No. 1341 of 2017) [2019] UGCommC 18 (11 July 2019)
The court held that a company, as a separate legal entity, cannot be represented in court by its managing director unless that person is a qualified advocate or a recognized agent with a duly registered power of attorney. Mr. Mabirizi, not being an advocate and lacking a power of attorney, had no locus standi to appear for the applicant company. The court found that the applicant was given ample opportunity to engage an advocate but failed to do so, resulting in unnecessary delay and abuse of court process. The authorities cited by the applicant were found to be inapplicable or misapplied. Up…
Source excerpt
Applicance World (U) Ltd v Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 204 of 2018) [2019] UGIC 15 (10 January 2019)
The Industrial Court granted an extension of time to file a memorandum in reply, holding that an administrative assistant’s failure to forward papers should not defeat the application.
Mugoya Construction & Engineering Limited v Central Electricals International Limited (Miscellaneous Application 699 of 2011) [2012] UGCommC 206 (20 April 2012)
The High Court dismissed an application to amend a defence, holding the supporting affidavit was incompetent and the alleged new facts were not truly new.
