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: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 05:44 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

4 May 2021

Constitutional Law [2021] UGCC 19

Kwiringira Magezi and Another v Attorney General

Kwiringira Magezi and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 24 of 2018) [2021] UGCC 19 (4 May 2021)

Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number: Constitutional Petition No. 24 of 2018
Judge: Cheborion, JCC, Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Musoke, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC, Egonda-Ntende, JCC

The court held that the districts specified in Article 178(3) and the First Schedule were not entrenched as regional governments because the requisite agreements under Article 178(1) had not been reached; thus, they remained ordinary districts subject to alteration under Article 179. The process for creating Kikube District was found to have complied with constitutional requirements: the motion was debated, committee reports were considered, stakeholder consultations occurred, and the resolution was passed by a majority of Parliament. The court found insufficient evidence that Parliament fail…

Source excerpt

District Creation
Parliamentary Resolutions
Constitutional Amendment Procedure
Regional Governments
Local Government Boundaries
Public Interest Litigation

Read case analysis

23 Nov 2001

Constitutional Law [2001] UGCC 4

Uganda Law Society v Attorney General

Uganda Law Society v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 8 of 2000) [2001] UGCC 4 (23 November 2001)

Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number: Constitutional Petition 8 of 2000
Judge: Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Kitumba, JA, Okello, JA, kato ,JA

The Constitutional Court unanimously held that the petitioners failed to prove that Parliament did not follow the proper constitutional procedure when enacting the Constitutional Amendment Act No. 13 of 2000. The Court found that the amendments made, including additions and replacements, were within the scope permitted by Articles 258 and 257(9) of the Constitution. The procedures for passage, including readings and committee involvement, were governed by both constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules, which allow for urgent bills to be expedited. The absence of direct evidence showin…