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
Housing Finance Bank v Kiganda Jalia (Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 516 (14 July 2025)
The High Court declined to grant vacant possession in a mortgage recovery application, finding disputed liability and insufficient proof of statutory notice service.
Kassim v Ochieng & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 52 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 366 (30 May 2025)
The High Court found the 18 March 2025 proceedings were not ex parte, declined to recall the 1st respondent for cross-examination, but allowed the applicant to present his defence.
Malaba Town Council v Ekel Martin (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2025) [2025] UGHC 430 (30 April 2025)
The High Court refused an application to recall a witness for further cross-examination, finding the request was late, prejudicial, and brought in bad faith.
Sande v Babumba (Civil Appeal 25 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 227 (25 April 2025)
The High Court struck out this appeal for failure to seek leave to appeal, and noted that recalling witnesses for cross-examination was within the trial court’s discretion.
Uganda Communications Employees Union and 2 Others v Uganda Telecom Limited and Another (Labour Claim 26 of 2016) [2025] UGIC 16 (10 March 2025)
The Industrial Court declared NSSF’s witness hostile and allowed UTL to cross-examine him, finding the respondents’ interests were adverse on statutory contributions.
Ategeka v Uganda (Criminal Revision 74 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 60 (19 July 2024)
The High Court found that the applicant was denied the right to legal representation during the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, a right protected under Article 28 of the Constitution. The lower court failed to inquire into the absence of counsel or to ensure the applicant’s right to effective cross-examination, especially given the late disclosure of prosecution evidence. The trial magistrate’s refusal to allow the applicant’s lawyers to recall the witness for cross-examination constituted a material irregularity and a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial. Th…
Source excerpt
Kodet v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 16 of 2019) [2023] UGCA 290 (1 November 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that although the trial judge failed to record that PW3 was sworn in, the handwritten record confirmed that cross-examination occurred, and no miscarriage of justice resulted. The absence of a signed memorandum for agreed documents did not prejudice the appellant, as both parties were present and raised no objection. The trial judge did sum up the law and evidence for the assessors, who gave their opinions, and the absence of summing up notes was not fatal. However, the sentence of 60 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors, includin…
Source excerpt
China Railway No. 3 Engineering Company Limited v Prof . Gakwandi (Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 217 (8 June 2023)
The court found that the omission to mark the annexures to the applicant's affidavit was a minor technicality, curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, as the documents were referenced and identifiable. The court held that, since the main suit had already been instituted, auxiliary applications such as the present one did not require a fresh company resolution. The Health, Safety and Environment officer was deemed a principal officer competent to depose the affidavit. On the substantive issue, the court exercised its discretion under Order 18 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules a…
Source excerpt
Baliruno v Central Broadcasting Services (CBS) (Labour Dispute Reference 92 of 2020) [2023] UGIC 102 (24 May 2023)
The Industrial Court, by virtue of Section 18 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, is not bound by the strict rules of evidence that apply to civil proceedings. The Court adopts a less formal and more equitable approach to the admissibility of evidence in labour disputes, allowing documents to be admitted at the preliminary stage, with their authenticity, credibility, and probative value to be tested during cross-examination and subsequent evaluation. The admission of documents does not confirm their legality or authenticity, which remains subject to proof. The preliminary…
Source excerpt
Mugabe v Nyinambungira (Civil Appeal 60 of 2022) [2023] UGCA 364 (17 April 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to conduct a valid hearing as required by the Divorce Act and Civil Procedure Rules. The procedure adopted—relying exclusively on written submissions and affidavits without oral evidence or opportunity for cross-examination—was a clear violation of Order 18 Rule 4 and Order 19 Rule 1. The right to a fair hearing includes the opportunity to test evidence through cross-examination, which was denied in this case. As a result, the judgment and decree nisi of the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted for retrial before another…
Source excerpt
