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
Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 56 of 2023) [2023] UGCA 366 (26 June 2023)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for a temporary injunction pending appeal over Uganda’s ITMS rollout, finding no irreparable harm and that convenience favored the respondent.
Mackay v Attorney General and 3 Others (Misc Cause No. 12 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCD 104 (7 January 2022)
The application was dismissed primarily because it was served outside the prescribed time without any application for extension, in violation of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that the rules regarding service are of strict application and binding, and the applicant failed to comply. Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient and corroborated evidence to prove the alleged violation of his rights to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The supporting documents and photographs were deemed hearsay and inadmissible without affidavits from their aut…
Source excerpt
Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2011) [2021] UGCC 41 (10 December 2021)
The majority of the Constitutional Court held that the petition did not disclose a question for constitutional interpretation as required under article 137(3) of the Constitution. The issues raised, particularly regarding the constitutionality of preventive arrest and the acts of police and security operatives, had already been settled by prior decisions of the court, notably Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General. The majority reasoned that the petition essentially sought enforcement of fundamental rights, which falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court under article…
Source excerpt
Nakandi and Others v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 83 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 40 (3 December 2021)
The court found that the applicants' allegations of torture and infringement of constitutional rights were not substantiated by direct evidence from the applicants themselves, but rather by hearsay affidavits from relatives. The court held that such serious allegations must be determined by the trial judge in the main case upon consideration of all evidence, not through an interlocutory application limited to affidavit evidence. The omnibus nature of the application was improper, and the aspect relating to bail was struck out. The remaining application for a permanent stay of prosecution was…
Source excerpt
Nagami Gloria v Attorney General and Anor (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 27 (30 April 2021)
The court held that while the right to vote is fundamental and protected by the Constitution, it is subject to the procedures and limitations established by electoral laws. The Electoral Commission is mandated to set a cut-off date for voter registration to ensure the orderly conduct of elections and to provide a clean, reliable voters register. The court found that the applicant did not follow the proper procedure for raising objections regarding the voters register, as such complaints must first be addressed to the Electoral Commission and its tribunal. The court further reasoned that the i…
Source excerpt
Nabasirye & Anor v Electoral Commission & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 456 of 2015) [2015] UGHCEP 2 (1 December 2015)
The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims for infringement of civic rights under Article 50 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the existence of specific electoral laws. The Applicants have locus standi to bring the suit as their claim is based on alleged violation of their constitutional rights to proper representation. The objections based on electoral statutes and misidentification of parties are distinguishable and not sustainable in this context. The discrepancies in the 2nd Respondent's academic credentials and names raise triable issues that warrant judicial investigation. T…
Source excerpt
Imaniraguha John v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 55 of 2010) [2011] UGCC 16 (15 September 2011)
The court held that a single justice of the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine an application for interim orders pending the determination of the main application and petition. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success, particularly regarding the alleged violations of fundamental rights, including liberty, privacy, property, and parental rights. The court found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the interim orders were not granted, as the rights at stake are non-derogable and cannot be adequately compensated by d…
Source excerpt
Dr Kizza Besigye & 10 Ors v The Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2007) [2009] UGCC 3 (1 September 2009)
The court found that the petitioners in the present case were not parties to the previous litigation in Uganda Law Society v Attorney General and Attorney General v Uganda Law Society, and that the acts or events complained of by the petitioners constitute a repetition of previous acts by the State. The court held that, although the respondent sought to invoke explanation 6 of section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act to bind the petitioners to the previous decisions, the doctrine of res judicata could not be applied because the present petition concerns new acts and the petitioners were not direc…
Source excerpt
Rwanyarare and others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application 6 of 2002) [2003] UGCC 1 (16 January 2003)
The court held that while section 65(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and section 35 of the Judicature Statute do not provide the Constitutional Court with authority to grant the order sought, this does not oust the court's inherent jurisdiction under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act or its rules to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. The court found that the prohibition against injunctions in section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, rooted in colonial practice and the doctrine of Crown immunity, must be construed in light of the 1995 Cons…
Source excerpt
Dr. Rwanyarare and 9 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition Application 6 of 2002) [2003] UGCC 3 (16 January 2003)
The court stayed the operation of section 6(3) and (4) of the Political Parties and Organizations Act pending determination of the constitutional petition.
