JurisAssist Uganda Case Law
Uganda
Sign in
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
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Uganda case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal Law [2020] UGCA 53

Nasasira Grace & Ors v Uganda

Nasasira Grace & Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2017) [2020] UGCA 53 (26 February 2020)

Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2017
Judge
Owiny-Dollo, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the General Court Martial lacked jurisdiction to try the appellants for the offences charged, as some were not subject to military law and the offences fell outside the scope of service offences under the UPDF Act. The composition of the General Court Martial was irregular, changing four times without maintaining the members at the coram, and the final coram lacked a non-commissioned officer as required by law. These procedural irregularities violated the appellants' constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 and Article 44(c). The convictions and se…

Source excerpt

  • Court Martial Jurisdiction
  • Fair Hearing Rights
  • Military Law Procedure
  • Constitution Article 28
  • Service Offences
  • Composition Of Court
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2017] UGCC 1

Murisho & 5 Ors v Attorney General & Anor

Murisho & 5 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2017) [2017] UGCC 1 (23 February 2017)

Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number
Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2017
Judge
Kakuru, JA, Egonda-Ntende, JA, Musoke, JA

The Constitutional Court held that only a full coram of five justices, as mandated by Article 137(2) of the Constitution, has jurisdiction to hear and determine interlocutory applications, including those for temporary injunctions and stay of proceedings, arising from constitutional petitions. Section 13 of the Judicature Act, which empowers a single justice of the Court of Appeal to handle interlocutory matters, does not apply to the Constitutional Court, as the two are distinct entities with separate jurisdictions and mandates. The court rejected the reasoning in previous cases (such as Ola…

Source excerpt

  • Composition Of Court
  • Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
  • Interlocutory Injunctions
  • Stay Of Proceedings
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2013] UGCC 4

Kamba & 2 Ors v Attorney General & 4 Ors

Kamba & 2 Ors v Attorney General & 4 Ors (Constitutional Application No. 14 of 2013) [2013] UGCC 4 (29 July 2013)

Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number
Constitutional Application No. 14 of 2013

The court held that a coram of five justices is only mandatory when the Constitutional Court is sitting to interpret the Constitution as per Article 137(1) and (2). For interlocutory matters, such as applications for temporary injunctions arising from constitutional petitions, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for a five-justice coram. Section 12 of the Judicature Act empowers a single justice to handle interlocutory matters, with a right of reference to a bench of three justices. The court found that the Rules of Procedure, including Rule 23 of the Constitutional Court (Pet…

Source excerpt

  • Composition Of Court
  • Jurisdiction Of Court
  • Interlocutory Applications
  • Judicial Administration
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2005] UGHC 90

Uganda v Rugarwana Constance,Hajati Hadifa Ndumba (HCT-05-CV-0001-2005 ) (HCT-05-CV-0001-2005)

Uganda v Rugarwana Constance,Hajati Hadifa Ndumba (HCT-05-CV-0001-2005 ) (HCT-05-CV-0001-2005) [2005] UGHC 90 (10 June 2005)

Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
HCT-05-CV-0001-2005

The High Court found that the Local Council I court was not properly constituted, as only two individuals (the Secretary and Chairman) signed the judgment, contrary to the statutory requirement of at least five members or co-opted members. The record lacked essential details mandated by law, such as the date of hearing, statement of claim, and witness information. The proceedings were further tainted by vague references to 'other residents' sitting to give judgment, which does not satisfy the legal requirement for court composition. Guided by precedent, the court held that the judgment delive…

Source excerpt

  • Local Council Courts Jurisdiction
  • Composition Of Court
  • Procedural Irregularity
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.