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
Okot Martine Obwolo v Pader District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 014 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 372 (4 June 2025)
The High Court at Kitgum refused the applicant’s request to cross-examine deponents in a judicial review matter about district recruitment irregularities.
Edith Muyinza Mukasa v Luwanga Chaitids and Nakini-U M I I D I F (Miscellaneous Application No. 3066 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 330 (9 May 2025)
The High Court refused to review a conditional stay order requiring UGX 30 million as security for costs, holding there was no error apparent on the record.
Twangyeirwa v Kawezi and Another (Civil Appeal 46 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1059 (7 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against refusal to amend a defense and reopen a land case, finding the application was late, unjustified, and aimed at filling gaps.
Kaaya Vicent v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 409 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCRD 3 (23 January 2024)
The High Court reinstated bail for the applicant, finding no evidence that he was likely to abscond and no grave reason to justify cancellation of his earlier bail.
Royal Transit Limited and anaother v Twaha Galiwango t/a Habriz Auto Supplies (Miscellaneous Application 80 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 53 (7 July 2023)
The court found that the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 0818 of 2022 was not justified, as the applicants' counsel had a reasonable basis for not appearing in court due to an internal memo indicating the presiding judge would be working from home. There was no evidence of negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of the applicants or their counsel. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the application to be heard on its merits. However, the court noted that the applicants did not act with promptness in filing the present application,…
Source excerpt
Kagoro v Jotena and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1985 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 302 (12 December 2022)
The High Court granted leave to appeal against an earlier ruling, finding the applicant had arguable grounds. It refused a renewed stay of execution and made no order as to costs.
Dr. Kirabo v Registered Trustees of Mengo Central, Old Boys Club and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 808 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 247 (30 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his presence was necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues in Miscellaneous Cause No. 195 of 2021. The application for judicial review is limited to public law principles, specifically the exercise of power by a public authority, and does not concern the determination of private proprietary rights. The applicant's claims relate to private interests in land, which are not the subject of the judicial review proceedings. The orders sought in the main application would not legally affect the applicant's intere…
Source excerpt
ASP Mugweri and 37 Others v Attorney General (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2021) [2021] UGIC 50 (19 November 2021)
The court found that the application to amend the claim was properly before it, not barred by law, and did not substitute a distinct cause of action or introduce new parties. The applicants demonstrated that material facts, claims, and attachments were omitted due to previous counsel's oversight, and amendment would allow for full adjudication of all issues, avoiding multiplicity of suits. The application was made in good faith, without delay, and would not prejudice the respondent. The court exercised its discretion under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 98 of the Civ…
Source excerpt
ASP Mugweri and 37 Others v Attorney General (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 127 of 2021) [2021] UGIC 105 (19 November 2021)
The court found that the application to amend the claim was properly before it, not barred by law, and did not substitute or introduce a new cause of action or new parties. The applicants demonstrated that material facts, claims, and attachments were omitted due to previous counsel's errors, and amendment was necessary for the just determination of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The application was brought in good faith, without delay, and would not occasion injustice to the respondent. The respondent's opposition was procedurally improper and not considered. The court ex…
Source excerpt
Stanbic Bank Holding Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 56 of 2019) [2021] UGTAT 23 (28 April 2021)
The Tax Appeals Tribunal stayed taxation of a bill of costs, holding it was premature until the main application is finally determined.
