Uganda Case Law

Basalirwa & 3 Others v Namakula & 3 Others

Basalirwa & 3 Others v Namakula & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 272 (25 April 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2023

Judge

Jacqueline Mwondha, J

The court found that the applicants' failure to adduce the original will and other documents at trial was due to the incompetence of their former lawyer, who lacked a practicing certificate and failed to follow proper procedure. The court held that this constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the admission of additional evidence on appeal. The evidence sought to be introduced is relevant, credible, and necessary for a fair determination of the authenticity of the will and the alleged forged signature on the marriage certificate. The court emphasized that the interests of justice an…

Source excerpt

• Admission Of Additional Evidence
• Appeals Procedure
• Wills And Succession
• Forgery Allegations

Administrators of the estate of the late Sam Musoke v Kabaale & Another (Company Complaint 14356 of 2023)

Administrators of the estate of the late Sam Musoke v Kabaale & Another (Company Complaint 14356 of 2023) [2023] UGRSB 9 (8 September 2023)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Company Complaint 14356 of 2023

Judge

Muliisa Solomon - Senior Registration Officer

The Registrar upheld a share transfer dispute, finding no sufficient proof that the deceased’s signature was forged and declining to cancel the 50-share transfer.

• Share Transfer Disputes
• Company Register Rectification
• Forgery Allegations
• Admissibility Of Expert Evidence
• Share-transfer-disputes
• Company-register-rectification

Wandera v Good Man Agencies Limited and 2 Others

Wandera v Good Man Agencies Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 680 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 274 (10 December 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 680 of 2021

The High Court dismissed an application to review and set aside a consent variation order, holding that alleged forgery required strict proof in a substantive suit.

• Review Of Consent Orders
• Company Management Disputes
• Forgery Allegations
• Variation Of Judgments
• Review-of-consent-orders
• Forgery-allegations

Gallad Abi Samatar v Mohamud Abdule Mohammed

Gallad Abi Samatar v Mohamud Abdule Mohammed (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 118 (1 November 2021)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2020

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the Applicant admitted to the joint business arrangement, pooling of funds, and undertaking to indemnify the Respondent. The only disputes raised were the amount to be refunded and the authenticity of the deed of acknowledgment. The Applicant failed to provide any evidence supporting the forgery allegation or to substantiate his claim that only USD 26,000 was owed. The Respondent's claim was supported by documentary evidence, including the deed of acknowledgment and postdated cheques. The Applicant did not deny issuing the cheques, and the signatures matched. The court co…

Source excerpt

• Summary Suit Procedure
• Leave To Defend
• Joint Venture Disputes
• Acknowledgment Of Debt
• Forgery Allegations

Nekuusa and Another v Zimula and Another

Nekuusa and Another v Zimula and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 368 of 2020) [2020] UGCC 17 (22 December 2020)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 368 of 2020

Judge

Wabwire, J

The High Court refused to join a bank’s advocates as defendants in a debt recovery suit, holding they were neither proper nor necessary parties.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Advocate Conflict Of Interest
• Forgery Allegations
• Mortgage Disputes
• Joinder-of-parties
• Advocate-confidentiality

Acer Godfrey Okot V The National Planning Authority (MISC. CAUSE NO. 297 OF 2018)

Acer Godfrey Okot V The National Planning Authority (MISC. CAUSE NO. 297 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 142 (28 November 2018)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISC. CAUSE NO. 297 OF 2018

Judge

Mugambe, J

The court found that the Applicant had served two five-year terms as stipulated by section 5(4) of the National Planning Authority Act. The Minister's clarification and the second instrument regularized the Applicant's tenure in accordance with the statute, and the retrospective appointment was valid. The Applicant's challenge was untimely and judicial review was not the proper procedure for contesting alleged forgery or contract issues. The statutory requirements governed the appointment and tenure, and the Applicant's service was consistent with the law. Therefore, the application for judic…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Appointment Of Public Officers
• Statutory Interpretation
• Forgery Allegations

Masereka v Nyangoma & Anor (HCT-01-LD-CA-0048 OF 2016)

Masereka v Nyangoma & Anor (HCT-01-LD-CA-0048 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCLD 92 (14 December 2017)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-01-LD-CA-0048 OF 2016

Judge

Oyuko Anthony Ojok, J

The High Court dismissed a land appeal, finding no error in the trial court’s assessment of evidence, rejecting a forgery challenge, and holding there was no denial of fair hearing.

• Ownership Disputes
• Sale Agreements
• Evidence Evaluation
• Fair Hearing
• Forgery Allegations
• Land-disputes

Ouma v Kirya & Anor (Misc. Application No. 288 of 2013)

Ouma v Kirya & Anor (Misc. Application No. 288 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 96 (16 July 2014)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc. Application No. 288 of 2013

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a consent judgment, finding no proof of forgery or lack of consent and holding the motion was delayed.

• Setting Aside Consent Judgment
• Forgery Allegations
• Delay In Filing
• Illiteracy Protection
• Burden Of Proof
• Setting-aside-consent-judgment

Kikongo v Electrol commissionand anor

Kikongo v Electrol commissionand anor (Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011) [2012] UGHCEP 298 (2 March 2012)

Court

Election Petitions of Uganda

Case number

Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011

The High Court held that the provision of S.6 of the Oaths Act is directory rather than mandatory, relying on precedent that technical defects in affidavits, such as undated jurats, do not vitiate the affidavit and can be cured by dating in court or re-swearing. The court found that the trial magistrate erred by dismissing the entire petition when the proper remedy was to expunge the defective affidavits, as the respondents only prayed for striking out the affidavits, not dismissal. The affidavits on the court record were dated, and the official court record is the reference point for proceed…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Requirements
• Oaths Act Interpretation
• Mandatory Vs Directory Statutes
• Forgery Allegations
• Procedural Irregularities