Uganda Case Law

Sentongo Abdulnoor Kyamundu and Others v Justice Forum (JEEMA) and Others

Sentongo Abdulnoor Kyamundu and Others v Justice Forum (JEEMA) and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 93 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 75 (20 June 2025)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 93 of 2025

Judge

Simon Peter M. Kinobe, J

The court found that the facts giving rise to the application first arose on 8th October 2020, and the application for judicial review should have been filed within three months from that date. Although the law allows the court to extend the time for filing upon application and demonstration of good reason, the applicants made no effort to seek such enlargement or provide justification for the delay. Consequently, the application was filed out of time and could not be entertained. The court dismissed the application with costs to the respondents, declining to consider the remaining issues.

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Locus Standi
• Internal Party Remedies
• Ultra Vires Actions
• Constitutional Rights Violation

The Open Forum Initiative(TOFI) vs Attorney General and Another

The Open Forum Initiative(TOFI) vs Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 9 (31 January 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2022

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding that the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success or sufficient cause for late judicial review filing.

• Leave To Appeal
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Extension Of Time
• Proper Parties In Judicial Review
• Leave-to-appeal
• Judicial-review

Kintu Samuel and Anor v Registrar of Companies and 2 Others

Kintu Samuel and Anor v Registrar of Companies and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 58 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 75 (30 June 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 58 of 2021

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to justify the inordinate delay in filing their application for judicial review. The alleged mistake of counsel was unsupported by proof of instructions or payment of fees, and the applicants were aware of the Registrar's decision but chose not to act promptly. The Registrar of Companies, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, is immune from suit regarding such decisions. The court emphasized that extension of time is discretionary and requires demonstration of good cause, which was absent in this case. The a…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Quasi Judicial Immunity
• Extension Of Time
• Laches And Delay

In the matter of an application for prerogative orders by Kaweesa v Uganda Freezones authority and Another

In the matter of an application for prerogative orders by Kaweesa v Uganda Freezones authority and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 320 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 22 (7 June 2021)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 320 of 2021

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the grounds for judicial review first arose by 8th January 2021, when the Applicant became aware of the performance improvement plan imposed by the Respondents. The three-month period for filing an application for judicial review therefore expired by 7th April 2021. The Applicant filed the application on 26th April 2021, outside the prescribed period, and did not seek or obtain an extension of time as required by Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009. The court rejected the Applicant's argument that the warning letter issued on 19th April 2021 constitu…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Temporary Injunctions
• Employment Contracts
• Performance Improvement Plans

Male v Attorney General

Male v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 847 OF 2016) [2020] UGHCCD 170 (10 June 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 847 OF 2016

Judge

Mugambe, J

The High Court refused to extend time for a judicial review challenge to Legal Notice No. 5 of 2010, finding no sufficient cause for the long delay.

• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Extension Of Time
• Ultra Vires Challenge
• Public Litigation
• Judicial-review
• Extension-of-time

Male Mabirizi v Attorney General

Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 237 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 3 (21 February 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 237 OF 2019

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The application was dismissed because it was not brought under the proper procedure for judicial review and was filed well outside the prescribed three-month time limit. The applicant attempted to circumvent statutory requirements by framing the application outside the judicial review process, despite seeking remedies that are only available through judicial review. The court emphasized that procedural rules exist to ensure orderly administration of justice and prevent stale claims. The Constitution does not override statutory procedures for accessing court remedies, and litigants must comply…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Procedural Compliance
• Appointment Of Public Officials

Kawooya v Jinja Municipal Council (Misc. Cause No. 0056 of 2011)

Kawooya v Jinja Municipal Council (Misc. Cause No. 0056 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 197 (26 September 2012)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Misc. Cause No. 0056 of 2011

The application for judicial review was filed outside the mandatory three-month period prescribed by Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009. The grounds for the application first arose on 08/06/2011, when the applicant was rejected as Deputy Mayor by majority vote in a council meeting. Subsequent events, such as approval of minutes and consultations, did not alter the date when the cause of action arose. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for extension of time, and the lack of approved minutes or pending ministerial advice were matters of evidence, not r…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Local Government Appointments
• Mandamus
• Procedural Bar
• Alternative Remedy

Argus Construction & Joinery Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 654 of 2006)

Argus Construction & Joinery Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 654 of 2006) [2006] UGCommC 40 (1 November 2006)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-MA 654 of 2006

The High Court granted mandamus compelling government payment of a decree, holding the application was not time-barred under the judicial review rules.

• Mandamus
• Government Proceedings
• Judgment Enforcement
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Judicial-review
• Government-proceedings