Uganda Case Law

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015) [2025] UGCC 5 (27 June 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JCC, Obura, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC, Kazibwe, JCC, Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC

The court held that Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it serves the legitimate objective of protecting the right to a fair hearing, which is non-derogable. The sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation under Article 43(1), balancing the right to freedom of expression and access to information against the need for fair and impartial judicial proceedings. However, Rule 73 of the Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits Parliament from discussing…

Source excerpt

• Sub Judice Rule
• Freedom Of Expression
• Access To Information
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights

HUB for Investigative Media & Another v Attorney General

HUB for Investigative Media & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 3 of 2020) [2024] UGCC 25 (12 December 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition 3 of 2020

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JA, Luswata, JA, Kihika ,JA, Kazibwe, JA, Asa Mugenyi , JA/JCC

The court held that the requirement to pay a fee for access to public officers' asset declarations under Sections 7(2) and 7(9) of the Leadership Code (Amendment) Act, 2017 does not amount to discrimination or an unconstitutional limitation on the right to access information, as the fee is universally applicable and not inordinately high. However, the court found that Section 11(4) (formerly Section 7(4)) of the Leadership Code Act, which grants the Inspectorate of Government broad discretion to restrict access to declarations, is inconsistent with Articles 41(1), 21(1), 29(1)(a), and 43(c) o…

Source excerpt

• Access To Information
• Leadership Code
• Public Officer Declarations
• Right To Privacy
• Freedom Of Expression

Kone and Another v Republic of Mali (Ruling) (Application No. 004/2024)

Kone and Another v Republic of Mali (Ruling) (Application No. 004/2024) [2024] AfCHPR 36 (20 November 2024)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 004/2024

Judge

Aboud P, Adjei J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Gaswaga J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Tchikaya J

The African Court dismissed a request for provisional measures by two Malian judicial officers, finding no proven urgency, extreme gravity, or irreparable harm.

• Judicial Independence
• Dismissal Of Judicial Officers
• Freedom Of Expression
• Trade Union Rights
• Due Process
• Provisional Measures

Haidara and Others v Republic of Mali (Ruling) (Application No. 009/2024)

Haidara and Others v Republic of Mali (Ruling) (Application No. 009/2024) [2024] AfCHPR 35 (29 October 2024)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 009/2024

Judge

Aboud P, Adjei J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Gaswaga J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Tchikaya J

The African Court granted provisional measures in favor of three Malian applicants, ordering suspension of their detention so they could receive specialised medical care.

• Arbitrary Detention
• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Right To Health
• Fair Trial Rights
• Freedom Of Expression
• Provisional-measures

Ali and Another v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 009/2023)

Ali and Another v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 009/2023) [2024] AfCHPR 16 (3 September 2024)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 009/2023

Judge

Adjei J, Anukam J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko VP, Tchikaya J

The Court held that it has material, personal, temporal, and territorial jurisdiction over the application, as Tunisia ratified the relevant instruments and deposited the required declaration. The objection based on sovereignty was dismissed, reaffirming that international obligations prevail over domestic claims of non-interference. However, the Court found that the applicants had not exhausted local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, since their cassation appeal regarding their detention and committal was still pending before the domestic co…

Source excerpt

• Right To Liberty
• Pre Trial Detention
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
• Sovereignty Vs International Obligations
• Right To Fair Trial
• Freedom Of Expression

Ocatre v Ezati and Another

Ocatre v Ezati and Another (Civil Suit 4 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 613 (10 July 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 4 of 2022

Judge

Acellam, J

The court found that the statements made by the defendants to the police regarding alleged death threats were made in the context of reporting a crime and are protected by absolute privilege. There was no evidence of malice or spite in the defendants' actions, as the first defendant acted out of genuine concern for his safety. The law recognizes the necessity for individuals to report crimes without fear of defamation suits, and such statements to police are not actionable unless made with malice. The plaintiff failed to prove that the statements were defamatory or made with malice, and thus…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Qualified Privilege
• Malicious Prosecution
• Burden Of Proof
• Damages
• Freedom Of Expression

Adelakoun and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 012/2021)

Adelakoun and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 012/2021) [2023] AfCHPR 48 (4 December 2023)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 012/2021

Judge

Aboud P, Adjei J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko VP, Tchikaya J

The Court found that the Applicants failed to exhaust available local remedies, specifically the remedy before the Constitutional Court of Benin, which is considered effective and expeditious. The Applicants' arguments regarding delays and lack of impartiality were unsubstantiated and did not demonstrate that local remedies were unavailable or ineffective. As exhaustion of local remedies is a mandatory admissibility requirement under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, and the Applicants did not meet this requirement, the Court declared the application inadmissible. T…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Internet Shutdown
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
• Admissibility Requirements

Gashumba v Amanya

Gashumba v Amanya (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 75 (31 March 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37 of 2021

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court partly allowed an appeal against an interim defamation injunction, narrowing an overbroad order to cover only defamatory publications.

• Interim Injunctions
• Defamation
• Freedom Of Expression
• Judicial Discretion
• Interim-injunctions
• Freedom-of-expression

Collaboration of International ICT Policy for East & Southern Africa (CIPESA) & 2 Others v Initiative for Social & Economic Rights (ISER) Limited & 4 Others

Collaboration of International ICT Policy for East & Southern Africa (CIPESA) & 2 Others v Initiative for Social & Economic Rights (ISER) Limited & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 650 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 389 (24 March 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 650 of 2022

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the Applicants demonstrated neutrality and impartiality, as no vested interest or predisposition was established against them. Their prior involvement as expert witnesses in unrelated matters did not amount to bias. The Applicants' submissions were found to be legal concepts rather than new evidence or causes of action, and the court emphasized that amicus curiae must not introduce evidence but may highlight novel legal issues. The Applicants identified areas not traversed by the parties, such as data protection, digital inclusion, and surveillance, which the court deemed…

Source excerpt

• Amicus Curiae Admission
• Data Protection Rights
• Digital Identity Systems
• Right To Privacy
• Freedom Of Expression

Human Rights Network For Journalists Ltd and Another v Attorney General

Human Rights Network For Journalists Ltd and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2018) [2023] UGCC 97 (17 March 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2018

Judge

Monica K. Mugenyi, JCC, Gashirabake, JCC, Madrama, JCC, Musoke, JCC, Egonda-Ntende, JCC

The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provisions of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 do not violate the constitutional rights to freedom of the press, property, equality, or fair administrative treatment. The Minister's oversight of the Uganda Communications Commission and related bodies is aimed at ensuring accountability and efficiency, and does not amount to unconstitutional interference. Licensing requirements for disposal of radio communications apparatus, while constituting a limitation on property rights, are reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society.…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Media Regulation
• Administrative Oversight
• Property Rights
• Non Discrimination
• Licensing Requirements