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
Ocira v Okwera (Civil Appeal 217 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 140 (27 March 2025)
The High Court held that a Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to decide an application for leave to appeal, set aside the ruling, and sent the matter to a judge.
Ocira Denis v Okwera Alex Alias Mukungu (Civil Appeal No. 220 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 530 (27 March 2025)
The High Court held that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to hear an application for leave to appeal out of time, because it sought substantive relief reserved for a judge.
Nabisaalu & Another v Mutumba & Another (Taxation Appeal 56 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 271 (15 November 2024)
The court found that the taxing master erred by taxing costs for Civil Suit No. 619 of 2019 where no order for costs was made, exceeding the scope of the court's order which only granted costs for Miscellaneous Application No. 3380 of 2023. The court reaffirmed that a taxing officer's jurisdiction is limited to quantifying costs where they have been duly awarded, not to awarding costs themselves. Furthermore, the court held that instruction fees for interlocutory applications must be based on what is reasonable, not on the value of the subject matter, as per the Advocates (Remuneration and Ta…
Source excerpt
Nakawooya v Ocitti & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Appeal 65 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 249 (29 October 2024)
The High Court upheld a finding that a fresh temporary-injunction application was barred by res judicata, and dismissed the appeal after validating an appeal filed one day late.
Muddu Awulira Enterprises Limited (MEAL) and 2 Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Taxation Reference 51 of 2019) [2024] UGCA 3 (19 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal held that instruction fees for an interlocutory security-for-costs application are assessed as a reasonable sum under paragraph 9(1), not by subject-matter value.
Uganda Muslim Welfare Association v Saudi Marble Co. Limited (Taxation Appeal 3 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 211 (30 October 2023)
The High Court partly allowed a taxation appeal, reducing main-suit instruction fees, disallowing a block perusal item, and keeping several other taxed items intact.
Finca Uganda Limited v Birungi (Taxation Appeal 29 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 184 (15 February 2023)
The High Court partly upheld a taxation appeal, reducing instruction fees from UGX 5,000,000 to UGX 2,000,000 and disallowing three bill items.
Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited v Nsubuga (administrator of the Estate of the late Stephen sirasi mubiru) (Taxation Appeal 434 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 303 (27 October 2022)
The court found that the application for consequential orders was wrongly treated as an independent suit by the taxing master, who erroneously based instruction fees on the value of the subject matter. The correct approach, as per the applicable rules and judicial precedent, is that instruction fees for interlocutory applications should not be calculated on the value of the land unless the application is a substantive suit commenced by plaint. The taxing master disregarded Rule 1 Part C of the Sixth Schedule, resulting in an excessive and legally unsustainable award. The court substituted the…
Source excerpt
Mwesigwa Vs Petro(Uganda) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 0162 of 2012) [2019] UGCA 93 (23 April 2019)
The Court found that there was no pending matter before the Court of Appeal, as Civil Appeal No 97 of 2009 had been concluded and the applicant had filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. Section 12 of the Judicature Act only empowers a single judge to exercise powers in interlocutory matters pending before the Court of Appeal. Rule 53 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules requires that applications for stay of execution be heard by a full bench if there is a pending matter. Since no such matter was pending, the application was incompetent and the single judge lacked jurisdiction t…
Source excerpt
Union Trade Center Ltd v Desire and Ors. (Taxation Cause 1 of 2017) [2018] EACJ 15 (14 August 2018) (First Instance Division)
The court held that the bill of costs must be taxed with reference to the nature of the application, which was interlocutory and not determinative of the main reference. The value of the subject matter in the main reference was irrelevant for the purposes of this taxation. The taxing officer exercised discretion to allow instruction fees of USD 9,000, considering the complexity, importance, and conduct of the proceedings, and added 18% VAT (USD 1,620). Other items were allowed only where properly supported and in accordance with the Rules, with several items reduced or disallowed for lack of…
Source excerpt
