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
Kirungi v Fort Portall City Council (Miscellaneous Cause 5 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 291 (23 October 2023)
The High Court quashed Fort Portal City Council’s extension of a senior finance officer’s interdiction beyond six months, ordered reinstatement, and awarded damages.
Ochengel & Another v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 274 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 67 (30 April 2020)
The High Court awarded each applicant UGX 15 million in general damages for failure to communicate about prolonged interdiction, and awarded costs.
Nassuna v Atwine & 3 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO 322 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 73 (11 April 2019)
The High Court held that the Permanent Secretary could interdict the applicant as a responsible officer, so the judicial review challenge was premature and dismissed.
Mugumya v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 0116 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 43 (14 March 2016)
The court held that the application for judicial review was filed outside the three-month limitation period prescribed by Rule 5 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules. The applicant's argument that constitutional and statutory provisions override the time limitation was rejected, as the remedies sought were specifically under judicial review, which is governed by the rules. The court found that there was no application for extension of time and no good reason advanced for the delay. The authority cited by the applicant was distinguished as it dealt with enforcement of rights and freedoms,…
Source excerpt
Alir v Kotido District Local Government (Hct-09-cv- Ma. 001/2011) [2012] UGHC 178 (24 August 2012)
The court held that the District Executive Committee was properly constituted and acted within its mandate by referring the applicant's disciplinary issue to the Chief Administrative Officer, who, as the responsible officer, had the legal authority to interdict the applicant following his being charged with a criminal offence. The interdiction was a lawful administrative step, not a dismissal, and was in accordance with the Constitution, the Local Government Act, and Public Service Standing Orders. The applicant was not entitled to a hearing prior to interdiction since criminal proceedings we…
Source excerpt
