JurisAssist Uganda Case Law
Uganda
Sign in
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
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter Uganda case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2024] UGHCCD 155

Omari and Another v Hon. Adoa and 5 Others

Omari and Another v Hon. Adoa and 5 Others (Civil Suit 734 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 155 (11 October 2024)

Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Suit 734 of 2021
Judge
Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against the 6th defendant, as no facts were pleaded showing its liability for impounding or disposal of the fish. The evidence established that the impounded fish was immature and contraband under Ugandan law, justifying the actions of the 1st-5th defendants in impounding and disposing of the consignment pursuant to a valid court order. The plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence of ownership, proper documentation, or declaration of the alleged cash, and their claims were riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.…

Source excerpt

  • Cause Of Action
  • Conversion Of Property
  • Duty Of Care
  • Goods In Transit
  • Frivolous And Vexatious Suits
  • Impounding And Disposal
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2013] UGHCCD 26

Kayumba v Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013)

Kayumba v Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 26 (24 February 2013)

Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Misc Cause No.49 of 2013

The court found that the Applicant lawfully owned the ivory and had declared it at the Bunagana Customs Post while in transit from DRC to Mombasa, Kenya. The Respondent failed to rebut the Applicant's evidence of lawful transit and ownership, and did not discharge the burden of proof that the goods were uncustomed. The absence of criminal charges against the Applicant and the lack of evidence of illegality led the court to conclude that the seizure was unlawful. Goods in transit, not destined for Uganda, are not subject to Ugandan customs control or forfeiture. The court relied on statutory p…

Source excerpt

  • Release Of Seized Goods
  • Goods In Transit
  • Customs Enforcement
  • Ownership Of Cargo
  • Burden Of Proof
  • Restricted Goods
Read case analysis
Date unavailable
Civil Procedure [2014] UGHCCD 33

kiyumba emile v uganda revenue authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013)

kiyumba emile v uganda revenue authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 33 (24 February 2014)

Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Misc Cause No.49 of 2013

The court found that the Applicant proved lawful ownership and transit of the ivory, with supporting documentation that was not rebutted by the Respondent. The Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the goods were uncustomed or unlawfully imported. The seizure was not supported by a valid notice, and the goods were not destined for Uganda but were in transit to Mombasa, Kenya. The court held that goods in lawful transit are not subject to customs control or seizure under Ugandan law, and that the Respondent's actions were unjustified. The principle that courts cannot sanction il…

Source excerpt

  • Release Of Seized Goods
  • Goods In Transit
  • Customs Enforcement
  • Burden Of Proof
  • Restricted Goods
  • Wildlife Products
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.