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
Phillip Bayisirirya v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 67 of 2016) [2024] UGHRC 4 (27 November 2024)
The UHRC Tribunal held that Bayisirirya’s 14-day detention without court appearance was unlawful, awarding him UGX 1,000,000 in general damages.
No. 46516 PC Ababa v Attorney General (Civil Suit 10 of 2016) [2024] UGHC 925 (20 September 2024)
The plaintiff was unlawfully re-arrested and detained by police officers, agents of the defendant, for a period of 27 days following his release on bail, without any reasonable grounds or being produced before court. This detention exceeded the statutory 48-hour limit and violated the plaintiff's constitutional right to liberty. The defendant failed to justify the re-arrest and detention, and is vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its agents. The plaintiff's claims of torture were not substantiated by credible evidence and were rejected. The plaintiff is entitled to general damages fo…
Source excerpt
Mutama Richard & Others v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 70 of 2009) [2024] UGHRC 6 (24 June 2024)
The tribunal found unlawful prolonged detention of three complainants, but dismissed their torture claims. Compensation was awarded for violation of personal liberty.
Nyakana v Attorney General (Civil Suit 306 of 2011) [2024] UGHCCD 99 (4 June 2024)
The court held that the Plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, as it was filed well beyond the prescribed three-year period for actions founded on tort for personal injuries. The Plaintiff failed to plead or prove any statutory exemption, such as disability, in the plaint as required by Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 21 of the Limitation Act. The court further found that the ex gratia payment made by the Defendant did not amount to an admission of liability or revive the cause of action, as such payments are not recognized…
Source excerpt
Bukenya Umar v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 349 of 2004) [2024] UGHRC 1 (20 May 2024)
The tribunal rejected the torture claim for lack of credible proof, but found unlawful detention for 43 days and awarded UGX 3,000,000 in compensation.
Opii v Deco Tiles (U) Limited and Another (Civil Suit 269 of 2017) [2023] UGHCCD 171 (16 June 2023)
The High Court held that the defendants had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute the plaintiff and dismissed the malicious prosecution suit.
Uganda v Lubega alias Muteweta and 4 Others (HCT-00-CR-SC 635 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCRD 101 (17 April 2023)
At the close of the prosecution case in an aggravated robbery trial, the High Court found no evidence linking A1, A3, A4 and A5 to the offence and acquitted them.
Uganda v Lubega alias muteweta and 4 Others (HCT-00-CR-SC 635 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCRD 21 (17 April 2023)
The High Court held that aggravated robbery was proved, but no prima facie case linked A1, A3, A4 or A5 to the offence. They were acquitted at close of the prosecution case.
Ochola James v Owor Michael and Others (Civil Appeal No 016 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 515 (8 April 2023)
The High Court found that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly concluded that the Plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendants assaulted him or caused his unlawful arrest and detention. The Plaintiff's witnesses gave contradictory accounts regarding the circumstances of the alleged assault, particularly about identification at night and the sequence of events. The Defendants raised the defense of alibi, and the Plaintiff did not sufficiently place them at the scene. Regarding the arrest, the Court held that the Defendants' act o…
Source excerpt
Oting v B.O.G Adwari S.S.S (Civil Appeal 8 of 2017) [2023] UGHC 357 (21 February 2023)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order setting aside an ex parte judgment, holding that service was not effectively brought to the respondent’s attention.
