Uganda Case Law

Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA-UGANDA) & Another v Ndiko & 5 Others

Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA-UGANDA) & Another v Ndiko & 5 Others (Constitutional Application 9 of 2022) [2024] UGCC 26 (12 December 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Application 9 of 2022

Judge

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

The court found that both Applicants demonstrated considerable expertise in gender equality and matrimonial property disputes, with a history of relevant advocacy and litigation. Their intended intervention was novel, focusing on substantive equality, legal certainty, and remedies for gender discrimination—issues not addressed by the main parties. The Applicants were deemed impartial, as their advocacy roles did not undermine objectivity. The court held that the Applicants' submissions would aid jurisprudence and serve the public interest without introducing new evidence or bias. The Responde…

Source excerpt

• Amicus Curiae Admission
• Gender Discrimination
• Matrimonial Property Rights
• Judicial Separation Orders

Ntambala Vs Uganda

Ntambala Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2015) [2018] UGCA 83 (18 January 2018)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2015

The Supreme Court upheld Ntambala Fred’s defilement conviction and 14-year sentence, while rejecting the need for corroboration specifically in sexual offence cases.

• Defilement
• Corroboration In Sexual Offences
• Constitutional Equality
• Gender Discrimination
• Evidence Evaluation
• Sexual Assault Prosecution

Echaria v Kenya (Communication 375 of 2009)

Echaria v Kenya (Communication 375 of 2009) [2011] ACHPR 89 (5 November 2011)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 375 of 2009

The African Commission found that the applicant had exhausted all mandatory local remedies by pursuing her case to the Kenyan Court of Appeal, the highest judicial authority. Discretionary remedies such as review applications and quasi-judicial avenues were not required to be exhausted. However, the Commission determined that the thirty-one month delay between exhaustion of local remedies and submission of the communication was unreasonable, as no compelling explanation was provided for the delay. The Commission held that, in the absence of a prescribed period in the African Charter, reasonab…

Source excerpt

• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
• Matrimonial Property Rights
• Gender Discrimination
• Admissibility Requirements
• International Human Rights Obligations