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
Kikagati Power Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 55 of 2020) [2023] UGTAT 57 (12 May 2023)
The Tribunal held that Kikagati Power Company’s imported gearbox was classifiable under Heading 8483.40.00, not as a turbine part under Heading 8410.90.
Uganda v Nsubuga & Another (Criminal Appeal 92 of 2018) [2021] UGSC 60 (16 August 2021)
The Supreme Court held that failure to take a fresh plea after amendment of an indictment was not fatal on these facts, and reinstated the trial court convictions.
The Red Pepper Publications Ltd v The Disciplinary Committee Media Council & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 73 OF 2009) [2018] UGHCCD 30 (31 May 2018)
The High Court held that the Media Council lacked jurisdiction over complaints against a media house, granting declarations but refusing certiorari and prohibition.
Babcon Uganda Limited v Mbale Resort Hotel Limited (Civil Appeal 6 of 2016) [2017] UGSC 83 (4 May 2017)
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, when hearing an application under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an arbitral award, does not exercise original jurisdiction as contemplated by Section 6(1) of the Judicature Act. Instead, it exercises 'other jurisdiction' conferred by statute. As such, there is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the High Court under Section 34 of the ACA. The specific provisions of the ACA govern the proceedings, and the general right of appeal under the Civil Procedure Act does not apply where a…
Source excerpt
Pearl Impex (U) Ltd & 2 Ors v Attorney General of Uganda & Anor (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2011) [2011] UGCommC 205 (9 March 2011)
The High Court allowed an originating summons on interpretation of section 10 of the Investment Code Act and held the matter suitable for chambers hearing.
Ramji v Regional Commissioner of Customs and Excise (Civil Suit No. 70 of 1953) [1953] EACA 9 (1 January 1953)
The court held that a Kenya import licence was required for a car brought from Uganda and originally from the Belgian Congo, and upheld forfeiture under customs law.
Municipal Board of Mombasa v Karaji (Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1950) [1952] EACA 311 (1 January 1952)
The court held that second-hand lorry parts and tyres kept for use could amount to a “store” under the by-law, even without sales. The acquittal was set aside.
Poppe and Another v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1949) [1951] EACA 134 (1 January 1951)
The Court held that under section 221 of the Kenya Criminal Procedure Code, an accused person who does not claim to be a European before the subordinate court relinquishes the right to be tried under the special provisions for Europeans. The wording and context of Part VII make clear that the right is not automatic but must be asserted by the accused. In the present case, the appellants did not make such a claim, and the magistrate properly proceeded with the ordinary trial procedure. The Supreme Court's interpretation was based on a misconception of section 218 and failed to consider the mod…
Source excerpt
Rex v Ramlubhaya (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1949) [1949] EACA 27 (1 January 1949)
The Court held that the right of appeal under section 347 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is granted to any person convicted on a trial held by a subordinate Court, regardless of whether a sentence is passed or an order is made under section 34 of the Penal Code. The mandatory duty of the Magistrate to inform the convicted person of the right of appeal arises only when sentence is passed, but the absence of such a duty does not extinguish the right itself. The Court found no sufficient reason to restrict the right of appeal to cases where a conviction is followed by a sentence, and rejecte…
Source excerpt
Rex v Ferrari (Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1944) [1945] EACA 53 (1 January 1945)
The court allowed an appeal against price-control convictions, holding that the evidence did not prove the appellant was an officer of the company.
