Uganda Case Law

Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Makala (Application 2 of 2022)

Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Makala (Application 2 of 2022) [2022] EACJ 37 (2 December 2022) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 2 of 2022

Judge

Kayobera P, Mjasiri VP, Mugeni JA

The Court held that the Registrar had no power to waive security for costs, but the appeal was deemed properly instituted because the respondent relied on the Registrar’s exemption in good faith.

• Security For Costs
• Powers Of Registrar
• Appeal Procedure
• Court Rules Interpretation
• Security-for-costs
• Appeal-procedure

Were v Mutibwa Mugaiula and Another

Were v Mutibwa Mugaiula and Another (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2013) [2020] UGCA 2175 (6 July 2020)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2013

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Kiryabwire JA, Barishaki-Cheborion, JA

The Court held that Rule 94(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which allows for withdrawal of an appeal by consent of all parties, applies only when the appeal is pending hearing. Once an appeal has been called for hearing and is only pending judgment, it cannot be withdrawn under Rule 94(3) without leave of Court. The Supreme Court decision in Geoffrey Gatete And Angella Maria Nakigonya Vs William Kyobe was followed, confirming that withdrawal at this stage requires leave. Given the unique circumstances, including the COVID-19 lockdown, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 2(2) to gra…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Consent Orders
• Appellate Practice
• Court Rules Interpretation

Rugumba v Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012)

Rugumba v Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 152 (3 May 2013) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012

The court held that only items supported by original receipts or properly certified copies are allowable as disbursements under the rules. Instruction fee was taxed at USD 15,000, reflecting the court's discretion and the relative simplicity of the case compared to precedent. VAT and getting up fees were added in accordance with the rules. Items not disputed were allowed as claimed, while those lacking proper documentation were taxed off. The court emphasized that costs must be reasonable and not deter access to justice, referencing prior decisions. The total taxed bill was set at USD 24,801.…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee
• Disbursements
• Court Rules Interpretation

Hannington Wasswa Semukutu and Company v Onyango and 2 Others

Hannington Wasswa Semukutu and Company v Onyango and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 12 of 1988) [1989] UGSC 6 (7 July 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 12 of 1988

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Odoki, JSC, Platt, JSC

The Supreme Court of Uganda struck out a notice of appeal as out of time, holding that proceedings were ready on 22 August 1988 and the appeal was not filed within the prescribed period.

• Appeal Timelines
• Notice Of Appeal Striking Out
• Extension Of Time
• Court Rules Interpretation
• Appeal-timelines
• Notice-of-appeal-striking-out