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
Sebwalida v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 29 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 298 (19 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application challenging alleged unlawful remand beyond 360 days, finding no documentary evidence to prove the detention period.
Kato v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause 184 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 165 (25 October 2024)
The court held that the applicant's claim was improperly brought under the procedure for enforcement of fundamental rights, as the main grievance related to tort and internal university administration, not a direct violation of constitutional rights. The applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by university regulations before seeking judicial intervention. The court emphasized that constitutional provisions for enforcement of rights are not to be used to bypass established procedures or to pursue claims that are ancillary to substantive tort claims. The evidence did not esta…
Source excerpt
Kakwenza Rukirabashaija v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 35 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 161 (23 October 2024)
The court found that the applicant was unlawfully arrested and detained by agents of the respondent for seven days without being brought before a court, in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution. The applicant was subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, including physical abuse, incommunicado detention, and denial of access to family and legal counsel, contrary to Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution and the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act. The respondent's agents also unlawfully searched the applicant's home and seized property without a warrant, in…
Source excerpt
Kabenge v The Attorney General & 5 Others (Constitutional Petition 53 of 2012) [2024] UGCC 18 (22 May 2024)
The Constitutional Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution. The Petitioner’s grievances, including alleged attacks on judicial officers, professional victimization, and failure by the Attorney General and Uganda Law Society to protect him, do not present questions that require constitutional interpretation. Instead, these matters pertain to enforcement of rights, which should be addressed by the High Court under Article 50 of the Constitution or through relevant statutory mechanisms such as the Advocates Act and Uganda Law Society Act.…
Source excerpt
Tuhumwire and 5 Others v The Registered Trustees of Entebbe Club and 8 Others (Constitutional Petition 16 of 2015) [2024] UGCC 8 (20 February 2024)
The Constitutional Court's jurisdiction under Article 137 is strictly limited to questions of constitutional interpretation. The petitioners' grievances, while framed as constitutional violations, were fundamentally about enforcement of rights and administrative disputes within a private members' club. These matters do not require interpretation of the Constitution and are properly addressed by the High Court under Article 50 or through other statutory remedies. The existence of a parallel suit in the High Court on the same facts further demonstrates that the petitioners were forum shopping.…
Source excerpt
Mabirizi v Uganda (DPP) and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 3 of 2023) [2023] UGHCACD 6 (4 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant had locus standi under Article 50 of the Constitution to bring the application. However, the substantive claims failed because political leaders are not immune from criminal prosecution unless such immunity is expressly provided by law, which is only the case for the President while in office. The investigations, arrests, detentions, and prosecutions of political leaders in connection with the alleged diversion of iron sheets did not violate any fundamental rights, as criminal liability is individual and must be determined through trial. The applicant failed…
Source excerpt
Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Uganda (DPP) and Another (Criminal Miscellaneous Cause 3 of 2023) [2023] UGHCACD 7 (4 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant had locus standi under Article 50 of the Constitution to bring the application in public interest. However, the substantive claims failed because political leaders are not immune from criminal investigation or prosecution under Ugandan law. The Constitution only grants temporary immunity to the President while in office, and no such immunity extends to other political leaders. The applicant's reliance on the definition of public office and arguments about accountability were misplaced; criminal liability is individual and determined by evidence of participat…
Source excerpt
Ngobi v Orishaba (Misc Cause No. 24 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 277 (2 December 2022)
The court found that the applicant's notice of motion disclosed a cause of action under public law for enforcement of constitutional rights, specifically the right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution. The respondent failed to provide evidence that the vehicle was required or exhibited in any criminal proceedings, and did not rebut the applicant's affidavit evidence regarding impoundment and detention of property. The application is supported by Section 3(1) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, which allows for redress where constitutional rights are infringed. The prelimi…
Source excerpt
Ogol and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 422 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCD 45 (11 March 2022)
The court held that the applicants' dismissal from public service was a direct and automatic consequence of their conviction under the Anti-Corruption Act, specifically section 46, which mandates a ten-year disqualification from public office upon conviction for certain offences. The applicants had been afforded a fair hearing during their criminal trial before a competent court, and no further hearing was required by the Public Service Commission prior to their dismissal. The forfeiture of pension and gratuity rights was also lawful, as these benefits may be deprived following judicial proce…
Source excerpt
Richard Kafumba v Attorney General and 3 others (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2015) [2021] UGCA 10 (1 April 2021)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in dismissing the application on procedural grounds that had already been conclusively determined by another judge in the same proceedings. The Court emphasized that Article 50 of the Constitution allows for enforcement of fundamental rights by any competent procedure, including notice of motion, and that absence of specific procedural rules cannot be used to deny access to justice. The High Court was functus officio on the procedural issue, and the subsequent judge had no jurisdiction to revisit or overturn the earlier ruling. The dismissal…
Source excerpt
