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
Ssemwezi v Kyankwanzi District Local Government & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1194 (16 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to the dismissal of a nursing officer, holding that the applicant had been given a fair hearing and due process.
Eng. Fredrick Mubiru v Engineers Registration Board (Civil Appeal 87 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 202 (2 December 2024)
The High Court allowed an appeal partly, set aside a one-year suspension imposed on an engineer, and ordered a fresh disciplinary hearing after finding a hearing right was denied.
Tusiime Bamanyindo v Kaali Ali Fadhil and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 403 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 109 (3 July 2024)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success, as the main cause raised serious allegations of violation of his right to a fair hearing. The applicant faced credible threats of criminal prosecution and police disciplinary proceedings, and the consequences of such actions would not be adequately compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favored the applicant, as the respondents would not suffer injury if restrained from acting on the declaration, while the applicant risked substantial detriment. The court exercised its discretion…
Source excerpt
Aneno Karyn v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 400 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 86 (17 May 2024)
The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining disciplinary proceedings against a Ministry legal officer pending determination of her challenge to interdiction.
Nangumya v The Attorney General & 2 Others (Constitutional Petition 1 of 2021) [2024] UGCC 9 (25 March 2024)
The Constitutional Court held that the petition partially succeeded. The Court found that the High Court's order requiring the applicant to remit UGX 59,900,000 to the 3rd respondent did not violate the applicant's constitutional rights to property or to practice his profession, as the funds belonged to the client except for the portion covering duly taxed fees. The applicant's claim to a lien over the entire sum was unsupported by Ugandan law, which only allows retention of client funds for taxed costs. However, the Court found that the High Court's directive prescribing automatic disbarment…
Source excerpt
Nakinbinge v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 106 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 331 (27 October 2023)
The court found that the Judicial Service Commission's decision to dismiss the applicant from judicial service was procedurally improper and irrational. The applicant was not accorded a fair hearing, as the charge was amended without notice and there was no evidence of a proper plea of guilty. The Commission failed to observe the rules of natural justice by imposing a harsher penalty than recommended by its Disciplinary Committee without a fresh hearing or justification. The applicant's legitimate expectation, arising from the Commission's encouragement of mediation and the subsequent amicabl…
Source excerpt
Nakibinge v Attorney General (Misc Cause 106 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 347 (27 October 2023)
The High Court found that the Judicial Service Commission's decision to dismiss the Applicant from judicial service was reached in a procedurally improper and unfair manner, violating the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation. The Applicant was convicted on a charge different from the one communicated, with no evidence of a proper plea of guilty, and the Commission failed to provide justification for departing from the Disciplinary Committee's recommendation of a lesser penalty. The Commission's conduct amounted to procedural impropriety, irrationality, and disproportionali…
Source excerpt
Maruk v Attorney General and Judicial Service Commission (Consolidated Civil Suit 148 of 2015; Consolidated Civil Suit 149 of 2015) [2023] UGCA 188 (14 July 2023)
The Court of Appeal held that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) acted within its constitutional and statutory mandate in disciplining and dismissing the appellant, a judicial officer, for failure to deliver judgments within a reasonable time and for contravention of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court found that the High Court was correct in treating the appeal as a first appeal, with powers to reappraise both facts and law. The evidence established that the appellant delayed delivery of judgments for extended periods without satisfactory explanation, amounting to misconduct under the…
Source excerpt
Hawumba ( suing as the administrtrix of the estate of solomon kalikwanyi musoke ) v Attorney General (HCT-01-CV-CS 28 of 2014) [2023] UGHCCD 199 (31 May 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff's probationary appointment was governed by the Public Service Standing Orders and required explicit confirmation upon satisfactory completion of probation, which was not effected. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence of fulfilling mandatory requirements such as performance appraisals and departmental examinations. Investigations revealed financial mismanagement and negligence during his tenure, and disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law. The plaintiff was accorded a fair hearing and given opportunities to respond to allegation…
Source excerpt
SP Ajuna Mark v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 238 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 23 (20 February 2023)
The court held that disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in the Police Standby Disciplinary Court were lawful and did not amount to double jeopardy, as the disciplinary process concerned breaches of the police code of conduct distinct from the criminal charges for which the applicant had been acquitted. The Police Act and relevant guidelines permit disciplinary action independent of criminal proceedings, and the standards and objectives of the two processes differ. Judicial review in such matters is limited, and the court found no basis to interfere with the disciplinary authority's…
Source excerpt
