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
Mademaga v Dudua & Another (Civil Appeal 27 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 965 (3 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal after finding the grounds of appeal too general and non-compliant with Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Mutungi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 207 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 74 (27 March 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that the grounds were vague and defective under Rule 66(2) and that the plea bargain limited the available grounds of challenge.
Ayena & 20 Others v Ondia & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2017) [2023] UGHC 425 (22 November 2023)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no substantial question of law or arguable ground arising from the earlier ruling.
Sebukyu & Another v Zabasajja (Civil Appeal 45 of 2020) [2023] UGHC 401 (3 July 2023)
The court found that the only ground of appeal raised by the Appellants did not comply with Order 43 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as it failed to specify any distinct error of law or fact. The ground was deemed a fishing expedition, similar to the one dismissed in Attorney General v. Florence Baliraine. The court, being bound by this precedent, held that the appeal disclosed no proper ground for appellate review and therefore lacked merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondent.
Source excerpt
Byakagaba v Ssempa (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 279 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 188 (21 August 2017)
The High Court dismissed an application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal, finding no sufficient cause and noting the applicant had not shown specific appeal grounds.
Mayeku & 198 ors v Attorney general & 2 ors (Misc. Application No. 618 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCD 80 (20 August 2015)
The High Court granted the applicants leave to appeal after finding that the grounds raised important legal issues and should be tested on appeal.
Waidha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2014) [2015] UGCA 12 (12 February 2015)
The court found that the applicant's previous appeal was struck out for procedural reasons, not on its merits. The errors in drafting the memorandum of appeal were attributable to counsel and should not prejudice the applicant. The proposed grounds of appeal raise arguable points of law, specifically regarding the proof of essential ingredients of the offence and the admissibility of a co-accused's confession. In the interests of justice, and given the court's inherent powers and discretion under the rules, sufficient grounds exist to justify extension of time for filing the appeal. The appli…
Source excerpt
Isharaza v Beyunga (HCT-05-CV-CA-005-2004) [2004] UGHC 76 (7 October 2004)
The court found that the memorandum of appeal was defective as it did not set out the grounds of objection concisely and under distinct heads as required by Order 39 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant attempted to argue grounds not apparent in the memorandum without seeking leave of court, contrary to Order 39 rule 2. The court relied on the precedent in Moro Okolla vs John Lalobo [1979] HCB 54, which held that a memorandum of appeal not complying with the rules is incurably defective and must be rejected. Consequently, the appeal was struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
Rasul v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 1953) [1953] EACA 8 (1 January 1953)
The court held that the practice of adding new grounds of appeal by letter to the Registrar is not competent under section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Only one petition of appeal is contemplated, and if further grounds are to be argued, a formal motion to amend the petition must be filed. The decision to allow such amendment is at the discretion of the court, which may refuse it if the motion is filed long after the time for appeal has expired or if the new grounds relate only to questions of fact not raised at trial. In the present case, considering the circumstances, the court exerc…
Source excerpt
