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
Kasolo v Delahaije (Civil Reference 3 of 2023) [2024] UGSC 19 (1 July 2024)
The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of interim stay, finding the probate grant had already been resealed and the application was therefore moot.
Mulhubira v Ambitious Construction Company (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 655 (25 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal as out of time, holding that the 14-day rule applies and did not wait for the proceedings record.
The Registered trustees of Soroti Catholic Diocese v Imalingat (Miscellaneous Application 24 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCRD 83 (14 July 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal, holding the delay was unjustified and the court lacked jurisdiction.
Kyakabale v Attorney General (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2017) [2021] UGCA 103 (5 October 2021)
The Court held that the jurisdiction to hear applications for interim orders of stay of proceedings arising from constitutional petitions does not require the full coram of five judges as prescribed for constitutional interpretation matters under Article 137(2) of the Constitution. Instead, such applications may be heard by a single judge of the Court of Appeal under section 12 of the Judicature Act and Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules, provided they do not raise questions for constitutional interpretation. The application in question was rendered moot by the High Court's prior grant of s…
Source excerpt
Kiwanuka & 2 Ors v Gaira & 5 Ors (Civil Application No .212 of 2017) [2020] UGCA 67 (1 June 2020)
The Court of Appeal refused leave to file a reference out of time, finding no sufficient cause for delay and dismissing the motion with costs.
Rurangaranga & Anor v Horizone courches [2009] UGSC 30 (5 August 2009)
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's failure to serve copies of the notice of appeal on all persons directly affected by the appeal, specifically its co-defendants, constituted a failure to take an essential step in the appeal process and a violation of rule 74(1) of the Supreme Court Rules. The rule is mandatory, and unless the court directs otherwise, all directly affected parties must be served. The respondent did not seek or obtain such direction from the court. The fact that the co-defendants did not participate in the Court of Appeal proceedings did not exempt the respondent fro…
Source excerpt
