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
Odendi v Mubiboyi (Miscellaneous Appeal 144 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 771 (20 August 2024)
The High Court at Arua dismissed an application to set aside striking out of a notice of appeal and for leave to appeal out of time, finding no good cause.
Ayagashenyi & 3 Others v Nkunzingoma & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 164 (28 February 2024)
The application to reinstate Civil Appeal No. 0023 of 2019 is incompetent because the original appeal was dismissed under Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act, which constitutes a final decree. The High Court lacks jurisdiction to reinstate such an appeal; the only remedy available to the applicants is to appeal the dismissal order. Furthermore, the applicants failed to file a memorandum of appeal, which is the proper mode of commencing an appeal before the High Court, and relied instead on a notice of appeal, which is not recognized by law for this purpose. The applicants exhibited undue dela…
Source excerpt
Kazahura Robinah Achieng v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 20 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 32 (17 January 2024)
The court held that the appellant, having received the certified record and judgment from the lower court on 22nd February 2021, was required under Section 28(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act to file the memorandum of appeal within fourteen days, i.e., by 9th March 2021. The memorandum of appeal was instead filed on 6th November 2023, over two years late, without any application for extension of time as required by Section 31(1) of the Act. The court rejected the argument that the delay was a mere technicality, emphasizing that Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not override mand…
Source excerpt
Tropical Bank Limited v GoldStar Insurance Company Limited (Appeal 4 of 2023) [2023] UGIAT 6 (25 September 2023)
The Tribunal dismissed Tropical Bank Limited’s appeal for non-appearance after the respondent attended and the hearing had been duly noticed.
Ssemakula v Asiimwe (Civil Application 16 of 2022; Civil Application 18 of 2022) [2023] UGSC 11 (14 April 2023)
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed an application to extend time for filing an appeal and struck out the appeal as incompetent, citing no sufficient cause for delay.
Otim v Akwanu (HCMA 35 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 317 (25 August 2022)
The court found that the applicant provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the memorandum of appeal, specifically citing his illness and lack of legal representation as valid reasons. Medical evidence was adduced and accepted as proof of incapacity to act within the statutory period. The court applied a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice, noting that no negligence or lack of bona fides was imputed to the applicant. Accordingly, the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2018 was set aside, and the applicant was granted leave to file and serve th…
Source excerpt
KAC Chemicals & Paints (U) Ltd v 20 Cube Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1507 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 45 (29 June 2022)
The High Court declined to strike out an appeal, finding the respondent had diligently sought the typed record of proceedings and that delay was attributable to the court.
Semakula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 74 of 2019) [2022] UGSC 33 (14 January 2022)
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal because the appellant missed court-ordered filing deadlines and did not file a formal application to validate the late documents.
Mibazi v Katentera (HCT-05-CV-MA-0002-2003) [2004] UGHC 81 (11 February 2004)
The High Court of Uganda dismissed an application to re-admit a dismissed appeal, finding the appeal incompetent because it lacked a proper decree.
Nakiranda v British American Tobacco (1984) (U) Ltd (CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2000) [2001] UGCA 53 (12 September 2001)
The Court of Appeal accepted withdrawal of the appeal, but because the respondent withheld consent, it dismissed the appeal with costs under Rule 93(4).
