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
Twinomujuni v Uganda (Criminal Revision 47 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 6 (25 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to stay criminal proceedings pending a civil suit, holding that section 208 of the Magistrates Courts Act does not apply to criminal cases.
Ndyamuhaki v Uganda (Criminal Revision 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 70 (9 December 2024)
The High Court found that Section 208 of the Magistrates Courts Act does not apply to criminal proceedings, as it is confined to civil jurisdiction. The Applicant's application to stay the criminal case before the Magistrate was therefore improper. While both the criminal case and Divorce Cause are premised on the same documents, the parties and remedies differ, and the risk of witness contamination or injustice is remote. Ugandan law and persuasive English authorities require exceptional circumstances and a real risk of prejudice to justify a stay of criminal proceedings, which the Applicant…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Byabagambi alias Buganda (Criminal Revision 2 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1035 (30 October 2024)
The High Court held that the existence of a civil suit based on the same facts as a criminal case does not justify the stay of criminal proceedings. Criminal and civil cases serve different purposes and can proceed concurrently. Criminal proceedings address offenses against the state and public order, while civil cases resolve private disputes. The law does not require criminal matters to be stayed pending the outcome of civil suits unless exceptional circumstances affecting the right to a fair hearing are demonstrated, which were not present in this case. The trial magistrate's order staying…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Karuhanga & 6 Others (Criminal Revision 1 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 854 (29 August 2024)
The court found that while there were concurrent civil and criminal proceedings involving substantially the same facts and overlapping parties, the respondents failed to demonstrate a real danger of prejudice if both cases proceeded concurrently. The trial magistrate erred by granting a stay solely on the basis of identical subject matter without assessing whether concurrent proceedings would actually prejudice the accused. The law requires a specific showing of prejudice, not just the existence of similar proceedings. The court emphasized that the risk of conflicting judgments does not, by i…
Source excerpt
Otim and Another v Uganda (Criminal Revision Application 32 of 2022; Criminal Revision Application 42 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 92 (8 August 2023)
The High Court (Land Division) has already delivered judgment on the civil matter concerning the same land that forms the subject of the criminal proceedings. As such, there is no longer any risk of conflicting judgments between the civil and criminal courts. The revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely because the applicants intend to appeal the civil judgment. The application for stay of criminal proceedings is therefore dismissed, and the trial court is directed to proceed with the criminal case without further delay.
Source excerpt
P' Odur v Watmon (Civil Appeal 115 of 2019) [2023] UGCommC 221 (23 April 2023)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that the respondent failed to prove a better title and that the alleged 1978 allocation lacked a lawful basis.
New Court View Hotel v Senabulya (Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 213 (14 October 2022)
The High Court held that Section 93 of the Employment Act, 2006, while conferring jurisdiction on the Labour Officer to handle employment disputes, does not expressly oust the jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts. The court emphasized that ouster clauses must be construed strictly and that the mere grant of jurisdiction to another tribunal does not automatically exclude the jurisdiction of subordinate courts unless expressly stated. The Constitution and the Magistrates Courts Act vest Magistrates' Courts with jurisdiction over all civil matters unless specifically excluded. The court found tha…
Source excerpt
The Managing Director National Social Security Fund and 196 Others (Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2016) [2022] UGCA 223 (8 August 2022)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court wrongly decided a judicial review matter without hearing parties and that the dispute was not fit for judicial review.
Matco Stores Ltd & Ors v Muhwezi (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 120 (18 September 2013)
The court found that the doctrine of res judicata was inapplicable because the matters in the former suit (civil suit No. 933 of 1993) and the present consolidated suit were not directly or substantially the same. The former suit concerned breach of contract, while the present suit involved trespass to land and conversion arising from execution. The parties were also not the same, and there was insufficient evidence to establish that the present plaintiffs were privies or successors in title to the parties in the former suit. The prior miscellaneous applications referenced by the applicants d…
Source excerpt
Nadiope v Mwebe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1939) [1939] EACA 44 (1 January 1939)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court and Lukiko Court had concurrent jurisdiction, awarded nominal general damages for breach of contract, and set aside special damages.
