Uganda Case Law

Muhumuza v Uganda

Muhumuza v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2021) [2021] UGSC 38 (18 February 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2021

Judge

Opio-Aweri, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the application for bail pending appeal is incompetent as there is no valid appeal before the court. For a third appeal from a Magistrate Grade 1 or Chief Magistrate, the law requires a certificate from the Court of Appeal that the matter raises a question of law of great public or general importance, or leave from the Supreme Court. The applicant had only filed a Notice of Appeal and had not obtained the requisite certificate or leave, rendering the appeal invalid and the application for bail unsustainable. The court emphasized that bail pending appeal can only be…

Source excerpt

• Bail Pending Appeal
• Third Appeal Requirements
• Certificate Of Public Importance
• Competency Of Appeal

Mibazi v Katentera (HCT-05-CV-MA-0002-2003)

Mibazi v Katentera (HCT-05-CV-MA-0002-2003) [2004] UGHC 81 (11 February 2004)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-05-CV-MA-0002-2003

The High Court of Uganda dismissed an application to re-admit a dismissed appeal, finding the appeal incompetent because it lacked a proper decree.

• Re Admission Of Appeal
• Dismissal Of Appeal
• Competency Of Appeal
• Civil-procedure
• Appeals
• Dismissal-of-appeal

Sabika v Luganda

Sabika v Luganda (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1999) [2001] UGHC 6 (17 October 2001)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1999

The High Court struck out a civil appeal as incompetent because it was filed without a valid extracted decree. The Constitution did not remove that requirement.

• Appeal Initiation
• Decree Extraction
• Competency Of Appeal
• Civil-appeals
• Decrees
• Appeal-competency

Incafex Ltd v James Kabatereine

Incafex Ltd v James Kabatereine (Civil Misc Application No. 16 of 1997) [1997] UGCA 8 (18 November 1997)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Misc Application No. 16 of 1997

The Court of Appeal of Uganda struck out an appeal against an interim stay order, holding that leave was required and had not been obtained.

• Competency Of Appeal
• Interim Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Civil-procedure
• Leave-to-appeal
• Interim-orders

Sino (U) Fisheries Joint Venture Co.Ltd v Uganda Fisheries Enterprises Ltd (HC. MISC. APPL. NO.23 OF 1993)

Sino (U) Fisheries Joint Venture Co.Ltd v Uganda Fisheries Enterprises Ltd (HC. MISC. APPL. NO.23 OF 1993) [2018] UGHCCD 37 (13 August 2018)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

HC. MISC. APPL. NO.23 OF 1993

Judge

Kato, J

The court found that there was no formal order made by the District Registrar that could be appealed against within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act. The memo relied upon by the appellant was not an order but an administrative note, and legal matters must be dealt with in an accepted form. The appeal was therefore incompetent and was struck out. The appellant was advised to pursue his original claim through proper legal channels, as the appeal had no bearing on the main suit.

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Judgment
• Jurisdiction Of District Registrar
• Competency Of Appeal