Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:31 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

19 Nov 2014

Civil Procedure [2014] UGCA 145

Specioza Kalungi and Others v Attorney General

Specioza Kalungi and Others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2011) [2014] UGCA 145 (19 November 2014)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2011
Judge: Byamugisha, JA, Kavuma, JA, Nshimye, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the appellants had a legitimate cause of action as proved creditors of Uganda Transport Company (1975) Ltd, which was liquidated under the PERD Act. The trial judge erred in relying on Priamit Enterprises and Mugenyi & Company Advocates, as the facts of those cases were distinguishable and did not address the statutory obligations under the PERD Act. The relevant provisions of the PERD Act impose a duty on the Minister of Finance to pay proved creditors from the Divestiture Account, and where funds are insufficient, the Minister must seek budgetary support to sa…

Source excerpt

Divestiture Liabilities
Creditor Rights
Government Liability
Liquidation Process

Read case analysis

13 Jul 2006

Civil Procedure [2006] UGCommC 37

Uganda Electricity Board (In Liquidation) v Royal van Zanten (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 251 of 2006)

Uganda Electricity Board (In Liquidation) v Royal van Zanten (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 251 of 2006) [2006] UGCommC 37 (13 July 2006)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: HCT-00-CC-MA 251 of 2006

The court held that before making an order for security or attachment before judgment under Order 36 rule 5(1)(a), it must be satisfied not only that the defendant is about to dispose of property, but also that such disposal is with intent to obstruct or delay execution of any decree. The respondent failed to provide evidence of intent on the part of the appellant, a statutory body in liquidation, to defeat the respondent's claim. The law provides that liabilities of such bodies vest in government and are satisfied from divestiture proceeds, thus giving assurance that any decree would be sati…