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
Kalule v Yowhanis and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1571 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 139 (17 July 2025)
The High Court Land Division refused to certify a land dispute application as urgent, finding no sufficient evidence that the matter needed vacation hearing.
Katungye v Goldmine Finance Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 966 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 89 (22 July 2021)
The High Court granted a certificate of urgency so an ex parte temporary injunction application could be heard during court vacation despite lockdown restrictions.
Ceda Financial Services Limited v Q-Services Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 290 (10 March 2016)
The High Court refused to set aside a default judgment, finding effective service of summons, no sufficient cause for delay, and no basis to disturb execution.
CEDA Financial Services Ltd v Q-Services Ltd & 3 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 86 (10 March 2016)
The High Court of Uganda refused to set aside a default judgment, finding effective service and no sufficient cause for the applicant’s delay.
Niwagaba & Ors v Owners of Condominium Plan No. 0026 & 0029 (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 21 (7 February 2014)
The High Court granted a certificate of urgency so the applicants’ pending applications could be heard during court vacation because a threatened eviction risked altering the status quo.
Societe BISIMAKI v Damco logistics (U) Ltd (Misc. Application No. 341/2013) [2013] UGHCCD 97 (18 July 2013)
The High Court certified an application as urgent and allowed it to be heard during court vacation because execution threatened the applicant’s goods.
Semakula v Equity Bank & 2 ors (Misc. Application No. 341/2013) [2013] UGHCCD 96 (18 July 2013)
The High Court certified an application as urgent and allowed it to be heard during court vacation because the sale of Kisubi High School was said to be imminent.
Sekiboobo v Obonyo (Miscellaneous Application 84 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 62 (8 September 1992)
The High Court declined to hear a miscellaneous application during vacation, finding no genuine urgency because the property at risk had already been sold.
Lakony v Gulu District Service Commission (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0110 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 36 (23 July 2018)
The court found that while the applicant acted promptly upon learning of the shortlisting and interview date, the affidavit in support failed to disclose the sources of information regarding the alleged lack of qualifications of the shortlisted candidate and the outcome of the District Service Commission's meetings. This lack of disclosure rendered the affidavit unreliable and devoid of evidential value. Furthermore, the respondent, Gulu District Service Commission, is not a legal entity capable of being sued, as corporate existence is conferred upon the Local Government Council, not the Comm…
Source excerpt
