Uganda Case Law

Kiyindi Electronical & Engineering Limited v Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority

Kiyindi Electronical & Engineering Limited v Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Appeal 86 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 401 (18 September 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal 86 of 2020

Judge

Baguma, J

The court held that section 91L(1)(c) of the PPDA Act prescribes a mandatory ten working day period for lodging applications for review before the Tribunal, and there is no statutory provision granting the Tribunal discretion to enlarge or extend this period. The Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to extend time in this context. The Tribunal's finding that the decision was communicated to the appellant on 28th September 2020 was supported by evidence, and the time for appeal expired on 13th October 2020. The appellant was therefore out of time, and the Tribunal acted within its jurisd…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Of Administrative Decisions
• Statutory Time Limits
• Extension Of Time
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals

Bitamisi v Rwabuganda

Bitamisi v Rwabuganda (Civil Appeal 16 of 2014) [2018] UGSC 53 (19 December 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 16 of 2014

Judge

Katureebe, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Mwangusya, JSC, Mugamba, JSC, Tumwesigye, JSC

The Supreme Court held that failure to serve summons within the prescribed time meant the suit stood dismissed without notice, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

• Service Of Summons
• Substituted Service
• Ex Parte Judgment
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals
• Land Title Cancellation
• Service-of-summons

Heritage Oil & Gas v Uganda Revenue Authority

Heritage Oil & Gas v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2011) [2011] UGTAT 1 (25 July 2011)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2011

The Tribunal held that the Uganda Revenue Authority, though an agent of the Government for purposes of tax collection, is a separate statutory body corporate and was not a party to the Production Sharing Agreement or the arbitration clause therein. The dispute before the Tribunal arose from statutory tax assessments issued under the Income Tax Act, not from the Production Sharing Agreement. The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction to resolve tax disputes is conferred by statute and the Constitution, and cannot be ousted or fettered by a contractual arbitration clause. The Tribunal further hel…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Clauses
• Tax Assessment Disputes
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals
• Stay Of Proceedings

Ram and Another v Fernandes

Ram and Another v Fernandes (Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1955) [1956] EACA 38 (1 January 1956)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1955

Judge

Corrie J

The court held that the Rent Control Board’s prior decision did not bind the magistrate on whether the premises were business or residential and remitted the case.

• Rent Control
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals
• Estoppel
• Res Judicata
• Landlord Tenant Disputes
• Rent-control

Devraj v Patel

Devraj v Patel (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1955) [1955] EACA 143 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1955

Judge

CRAM, Ag. J

The court held that a rent control board did not lose jurisdiction when its composition changed mid-hearing, because the statutory quorum remained and no natural justice breach was shown.

• Rent Control
• Board Composition
• Natural Justice
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals
• Tribunal-jurisdiction
• Natural-justice

Singh v Nathwani

Singh v Nathwani (Civil Appeal No. 758 of 1951) [1952] EACA 304 (1 January 1952)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 758 of 1951

Judge

De Lestang J

The court held that the appellant’s alleged trespasser status was not res judicata or estoppel, because it had only been incidental to earlier proceedings. The appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered.

• Res Judicata
• Estoppel
• Tenancy Termination
• Notice To Quit
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals
• Res-judicata

Gulmohamed v Sheikh Brothers Limited

Gulmohamed v Sheikh Brothers Limited (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1950) [1951] EACA 42 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1950

Judges

Lockhart-Smith, Ag. VP, Nihill P, Thacker, Ag. C.J

The Court of Appeal held that a Rent Control Board refusal to proceed was not a “determination” under the Ordinance, so the appeal failed.

• Rent Control
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals
• Appeals Process
• Determination Definition
• Rent-control
• Tribunal-jurisdiction

Heptulla Brothers Limited v Thakore (Privy Council Appeal No. 13 of 1955)

Heptulla Brothers Limited v Thakore (Privy Council Appeal No. 13 of 1955) [1950] EACA 89 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Privy Council Appeal No. 13 of 1955

The Privy Council held that the Rent Control Board's jurisdiction is limited to cases where a landlord and tenant relationship exists, as defined by the relevant Ordinance. The Board's determination of its own jurisdictional facts, such as the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship, is not conclusive and cannot create res judicata if a superior court finds that such facts do not exist. The findings of the Rent Control Board in these circumstances are merely collateral and do not preclude the Supreme Court from re-examining the issues. Furthermore, the evidence before the courts was i…

Source excerpt

• Rent Control
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunals
• Res Judicata
• Landlord And Tenant Relationship
• Licensor Licensee Distinction