Uganda Case Law

Kazooba v M.K Creditors Ltd & Others

Kazooba v M.K Creditors Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application 1257 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 37 (4 March 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1257 of 2022

Judge

Harriet Grace Magala, J

The High Court determined that the constitutional question regarding the appointment and deployment of acting judges had already been conclusively addressed by the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2022, which found the designation of acting judges for a term of two years to be unconstitutional but did not retrospectively nullify their appointments or judicial acts. The doctrine of res judicata precludes referring the same question to the Constitutional Court again. The High Court is bound by the Constitutional Court's decision under stare decisis, and the pending appe…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Appointments
• Acting Judges
• Constitutional Reference
• Case Consolidation

Ssewanyana & Another v Uganda

Ssewanyana & Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2023) [2023] UGHCICD 10 (25 September 2023)

Court

HC: International Crimes Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2023

Judge

Komuhangi, J

The High Court dismissed an application to stay criminal proceedings pending a constitutional petition, holding the petition had no likelihood of success and delay was unjustified.

• Stay Of Proceedings
• Pretrial Disclosure
• Fair Hearing Rights
• Witness Protection
• Constitutional Reference
• Stay-of-proceedings

Male Mabirizi v Attorney General

Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 915 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 51 (27 January 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 915 of 2021

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed question for reference to the Constitutional Court depended on the interpretation or construction of the cited constitutional provisions. The application did not show any controversy, uncertainty, or ambiguity in Articles 28(1), 44(c), 144(2), or 147(1)(d) of the Constitution that would necessitate interpretation by the Constitutional Court. The court emphasized that the mere request by a party does not obligate the High Court to refer a question unless it involves a substantial constitutional issue requiring interpreta…

Source excerpt

• Constitutional Reference
• Judicial Bias
• Fair Hearing Rights
• Court Jurisdiction

Tibeingana v Vijay and Another

Tibeingana v Vijay and Another (Miscellaneous Application 519 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 173 (26 August 2021)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 519 of 2021

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court dismissed an application to review a prior order in execution proceedings, holding the complaints were matters for appeal, not review.

• Review Of Court Orders
• Arbitral Award Execution
• Interest On Debts
• Constitutional Reference
• Civil Prison For Debt
• Error Apparent On Record

Karuhanga & Another v The Parliamentary Commission & Another

Karuhanga & Another v The Parliamentary Commission & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 229 (15 June 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2020

Judge

Elubu, J

The High Court held it could not treat the matter as moot or dismiss it on jurisdictional grounds, but stayed the judicial review pending a related constitutional petition.

• Judicial Review
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Certiorari
• Mootness
• Constitutional Reference

Omuron v Public service commission (Misc Cause No 200 of 2009)

Omuron v Public service commission (Misc Cause No 200 of 2009) [2014] UGHCCD 162 (4 April 2014)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause No 200 of 2009

The court held that the application against the Public Service Commission, a government body, cannot proceed directly as the entity is not a legal person and must be sued through the Attorney General in accordance with Article 250(2) of the Constitution and Section 110 of the Government Proceedings Act. The court referenced prior decisions, including CALEB ALAKA –VS– LAW COUNCIL, where similar objections were raised and the matter was referred to the Constitutional Court for interpretation. In light of the pending constitutional reference, the court determined that proceedings in the present…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Government Proceedings
• Prerogative Remedies
• Constitutional Reference