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
Henry Baganda v Godfrey Zinga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2008) (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2008) [2009] UGHC 107 (8 November 2009)
The High Court dismissed an appeal as out of time, finding it was filed nearly six months after judgment and without the required decree.
Uganda v Magezi Sam (HCT-05-CR-CN-0059-2002) [2003] UGHC 105 (19 August 2003)
The High Court struck out a criminal appeal as incompetent because the memorandum of appeal was filed out of time and no grounds were lodged within the statutory period.
Aaubuka v Onek & 2 Others (Election Petition Appeal 1 of 2001) [2002] UGCA 7 (3 April 2002)
The Court of Appeal held that while Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules allows for extension of time for sufficient reason, and Rule 52(2)(d) provides for informal applications in exceptional circumstances, such discretion can only be exercised where the applicant adduces evidence to justify the extension. In this case, the appellant's counsel made an oral application without providing any supporting evidence to demonstrate sufficient reason for the delay. The court found that the record of appeal was filed outside the thirty-day period stipulated by Rule 31 of the Parliamentary Elections (El…
Source excerpt
Board of Governors & Anor V Phinson E. Odong (Civil Appeal No. MG.2 of 1990) [1991] UGHC 1 (3 July 1991)
The court held that the appeal was incompetent on three main grounds: (1) the appellants failed to extract and file the decree or order appealed from together with the memorandum of appeal, as required by section 232(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act and established case law; (2) the order appealed from was not one from which an appeal lies as of right under section 77(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and no leave to appeal was sought or granted; (3) the appeal was filed out of time, as the memorandum of appeal was lodged almost a year after the o…
Source excerpt
Kiwanuka v Matovu [1990] UGSC 11 (16 November 1990)
The court held that although it is the duty of counsel for an intended appellant to ensure the completeness of the record, including the decree, before filing an appeal, a failure to do so—while negligent—does not automatically bar the applicant from obtaining an extension of time if sufficient reason is shown. The court considered the applicant's diligence and the fact that the omission was not due to a lack of effort or appreciation of legal necessity, but rather a failure to realize the record was incomplete. The court also noted that the respondent, as the successful party, had a duty to…
Source excerpt
