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
Bukera and 4 Others v Kabenge J (Misc.Application No.O648 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 104 (23 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a miscellaneous application because the related appeal had already been dismissed, making the application overtaken by events.
Edward Ssenteza v Cyril Kambarage Chigange and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1662 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 84 (12 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a miscellaneous application for a hearing date after the applicant disowned it and his former advocates had withdrawn.
Ruryabeita v Beyunga & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 50 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 449 (11 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to review a prior appeal judgment, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.
Masiisa v Mitala (FAMILY MTSC APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2021) [2023] UGHC 501 (6 November 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application for letters of administration, holding it could not arise from an administration cause already dismissed and had not followed the Succession Act procedure.
Muhimbise v Mohamed Saleh Ali and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 309 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 122 (14 April 2022)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a miscellaneous application after the applicant withdrew it in writing, and made no order as to costs.
Sebalamu Ganya v Yasmin Nalwoga (Misc.Civil Application No. 342 of 2017) [2020] UGCA 90 (24 July 2020)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a stay application as moot because the Supreme Court had already decided the underlying appeal.
Buntu Zabulon v Mbarara Local Government Council,Mbarara District Service Commission (HCT-05-CV-MA-103-2004 ) (HCT-05-CV-MA-103-2004) [2005] UGHC 113 (13 July 2005)
The High Court struck out a judicial review application as incompetent because the applicant did not prove when the termination occurred, so timeliness under section 38(7) could not be assessed.
Anderson Investments Ltd v Pan Afric Impex Ltd & Anor (Misc. Application No.107 of 2015) [2015] UGCA 72 (10 September 2015)
The court found that the applicant had failed to prosecute the application diligently, having been absent or unrepresented on two hearing dates without providing a satisfactory explanation. The delay of over two years and six months in seeking extension of time to appeal was deemed excessive and unjustified, even considering the alleged mistake of counsel. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 56 to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, emphasizing that the applicant's laxity and lack of follow-up could not be excused. Costs were awarded to the 2nd respondent.
Source excerpt
Sambih brothers Ltd v Scoul (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 28/95) [1995] UGHCCD 6 (18 September 1995)
The court held that since the applicant's earlier application for leave to appear and defend had been dismissed, the applicant could not file a fresh application for leave without first applying to set aside the ex-parte dismissal under Order 9 rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules or appealing the dismissal. The present application, having been brought under the wrong provisions and without first addressing the prior dismissal, was therefore incompetent. The preliminary objection was upheld and the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Source excerpt
