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
Mulindwa v Atalyeba (HCT-01-CV-CS-0040-2023) [2025] UGHC 539 (14 July 2025)
The High Court at Fort Portal overruled a preliminary objection and accepted a late defence, holding that substantive justice outweighed the filing default.
Nalunguju and 3 Others v Registered Trustees of Bannabikira 9Daughters of Mary ) and Another (Civil Suit 429 of 2018) [2024] UGHCLD 96 (9 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for want of prosecution after repeated adjournments, failure to file witness statements, and non-appearance on the hearing date.
Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit 274 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 156 (12 June 2023)
The High Court struck out Uganda Revenue Authority’s defence for evasive denials and held that several issues were res judicata, entering judgment for the plaintiff subject to formal proof.
Rukundo v Uganda (Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 93 (5 January 2016)
The court held that the existence of a valid and subsisting order from the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court, which specifically restrained the operation of the applicant's bank account, rendered the present application for revision moot. The Magistrate's order freezing the account had already served its purpose, and the subsequent High Court order, which was valid for six months or until further orders, superseded any relief that could be granted in the present application. The court emphasized that court orders must be obeyed unless set aside or varied, and that the proper procedur…
Source excerpt
Aciro Vs Okumu & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 009 of 2015) [2017] UGCA 127 (16 August 2017)
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant failed to prove substantial non-compliance with electoral laws or court orders that affected the election result. The Electoral Commission was not a party to the underlying suit and could not act on the appellant's instructions without a clear, final court order. The alleged lapse of the stay of execution was not confirmed by the Court of Appeal, and thus the Commission's actions were not unlawful. The claims of illegal practices and false statements by the 1st respondent were defectively framed, lacking verbatim particulars and proper translation,…
Source excerpt
