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, 04:30 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

2 May 2016

Constitutional Law [2016] UGCC 6

Tulsa Investiments Ltd & Anor v Attorney General & Anor

Tulsa Investiments Ltd & Anor v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Application No. 8 of 2015) [2016] UGCC 6 (2 May 2016)

Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number: Constitutional Application No. 8 of 2015
Judge: Kasule, JA

The court found that although the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success, granting the interim orders would prejudice ongoing investigations into suspected money laundering. The freeze on the accounts and suspension from employment were necessary to preserve the subject matter of the investigation. Lifting these measures would risk removal of funds under investigation and compromise the inquiry. The court held that any loss suffered by the applicants during the investigation could be compensated by damages if warranted. Therefore, the balance of convenience an…

Source excerpt

Interim Injunctions
Money Laundering Investigations
Right To A Hearing
Employment Suspension
Freezing Bank Accounts

Read case analysis

1 Feb 2013

Administrative Law [2013] UGHCCD 14

Byamugisha & Anor v Law Development Center (Misc Application No. 205 of 2008)

Byamugisha & Anor v Law Development Center (Misc Application No. 205 of 2008) [2013] UGHCCD 14 (1 February 2013)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Misc Application No. 205 of 2008

The court found that the disciplinary process against the applicants was irregular and did not comply with the Law Development Centre Standing Orders, as the matter was referred to an ad hoc committee rather than the proper disciplinary committee. Although the suspension itself was not illegal, the process following the suspension was flawed. The respondent conceded the procedural irregularity. The court held that the orders of certiorari and prohibition were not available since the suspension had already been lifted and there was no subsisting decision to quash or prohibit. On the issue of d…