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
Uganda v Baitwa and Another (Criminal Session 1 of 2019) [2025] UGHCACD 12 (30 April 2025)
The High Court acquitted two company directors of theft and conspiracy to defraud over alleged MTN(U) Ltd invoice fraud, finding no proof beyond reasonable doubt of their participation.
Tusubira v Seroma Limited (Miscellaneous Application 3080 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 331 (6 November 2024)
The High Court set aside a default judgment after finding service of summons ineffective and granted the applicant unconditional leave to defend the suit.
Namale & Another v Horeb Services Uganda Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 21 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 152 (7 October 2024)
The court held that both applicants had locus standi to bring the application for enforcement of human rights under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, as locus standi is based on the claim of violation, not relationship or direct interest. The pleadings disclosed a cause of action against both respondents, as the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act permits joining parties where liability is uncertain. The 1st respondent, as the licensed recruitment agency, bore primary responsibility for the safety and welfare of Namutamba Milly, and its failure to operate withi…
Source excerpt
Yovela Holdings Limited v Westnile Rural Electrification Company (Consolidated Miscellenous Application 108 of 2023; Consolidated Miscellenous Application 119 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 451 (6 June 2024)
The court found that the respondent's written statement of defence contained specific denials and addressed the substance of the plaintiff's allegations, thus complying with the requirements of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Striking out the entire defence would deny the respondent substantive justice, contrary to Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. Regarding the application to dismiss the suit for service of expired summons, the court determined that service was effectively made on the general manager of the respondent corporation within the prescribed period, and an…
Source excerpt
Odoi Odome v Uganda Electricity Generation Company (Miscellaneous Application 1088 of 2022) [2023] UGCommC 45 (13 January 2023)
The court found that the Garnishee Order Absolute was clear, unambiguous, and properly served on the respondent, who had knowledge of its terms. The respondent failed to comply with the order by the stipulated deadline, but provided credible evidence that internal contractual and verification processes, required by the underlying construction contract and its internal policies, delayed payment. The court determined that the respondent's failure was not wilful, casual, or contumacious, but rather a result of procedural requirements and not a deliberate defiance of the court's authority. The re…
Source excerpt
Mugambe v Kayita and Another (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 117 (8 August 2022)
High Court held the defendants breached a construction contract through delay and defective workmanship, awarded damages to the plaintiff, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Premier Commodities Uganda Limited v Kiir For Services & Construction Co. Limited and Others (Civil Suit 126 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 140 (20 May 2021)
The High Court held that the plaintiff proved a supply contract and unpaid balance, but the 2nd and 3rd defendants were not personally liable.
Bugiri High School Ltd & 2 Ors v DFCU Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 984 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 144 (2 November 2017)
The court found that service of summons was effectively carried out on the 2nd applicant, who was a director and principal officer of the company, in accordance with Order 29 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants failed to provide evidence that the 2nd applicant was not authorized or had ceased to be a director. The process server's affidavit confirmed service at the company's premises and acknowledgment by the director. The applicants did not demonstrate any sufficient cause, such as illness, mistake, or ignorance of procedure, that prevented their appearance. The court…
Source excerpt
Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) & Anor [2017] UGSC 74 (10 July 2017)
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed Uganda Revenue Authority’s appeal and upheld orders confirming the respondents’ liability for the disputed tax assessments.
Kibibu Engineering Co Ltd & Ors v Fanrong Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 371 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 68 (21 September 2016)
The court found that there was no evidence of proper service on the third and fourth defendants (applicants) as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. Service on the second applicant did not constitute service on the third and fourth applicants, and there was no evidence that the second applicant was a recognised agent empowered to accept service on their behalf. The rules on service are mandatory, and failure to serve each defendant personally or through a properly appointed agent renders the ex parte judgment and subsequent execution proceedings against those defendants invalid. The court a…
Source excerpt
