Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:09 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

5 Dec 2019

Constitutional Law [2019] EACJ 30

Mahok v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Application 20 of 2018)

Mahok v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Application 20 of 2018) [2019] EACJ 30 (5 December 2019) (First Instance Division)

Court: East African Court of Justice
Case number: Application 20 of 2018
Judge: Jundu JA, Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye JA, Ntezilyayo DPJ, Nyachae JA

The Court found that the Reference was not time-barred, as the impugned acts—failure to release the subject as required by the Revitalized Agreement and Republican Order, and the closure of bank accounts—occurred within two months of the filing. The Court held that the Applicant raised serious triable issues regarding alleged violations of constitutional and Treaty rights, including arbitrary detention and asset freezing. However, the Court determined that the Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury that could not be compensated by damages, particularly as the loss from business cl…

Source excerpt

Arbitrary Detention
Right To Fair Trial
Freezing Of Assets
Interim Injunctions
Access To Court

Read case analysis

7 Mar 2016

Constitutional Law [2016] UGSC 36

Twagira v Attorney General

Twagira v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2007) [2016] UGSC 36 (7 March 2016)

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
Case number: Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2007
Judge: Katureebe, CJ, Tumwesigye, JSC, Kisaakye, JSC, Nshimye, JSC, Mwangusya, JSC, Mwondha, JSC, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's grievances did not raise questions for constitutional interpretation but rather alleged violations of constitutional rights that should have been addressed in competent courts under Article 50(1) of the Constitution. The Court found that the prosecution and the freezing of the appellant's accounts were conducted within the framework of the law and did not amount to violations of the appellant's rights under Articles 24, 28, or 120(5). The DPP's discretion to prosecute is constitutionally protected, and the freezing of assets, if done within statutor…