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
Ntibabaza v Mujambere (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 259 (6 May 2025)
The High Court quashed proceedings in two magistrates’ court miscellaneous applications, finding the trial magistrate acted with material irregularity and beyond jurisdiction.
Muruhura v Kyarimpa and 2 Others (HCT-05-CV-CR 11 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 395 (31 May 2024)
The High Court set aside a magistrate’s protection order ruling, finding it improperly treated a contested land dispute as domestic violence without identifying a specific act.
Masiga and 3 ors v Wanyama (Civil Suit 44 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 313 (14 July 2023)
The court found that the Buteba LCIII Court acted without jurisdiction in passing judgment on a land dispute, as established by Supreme Court precedent. The Chief Magistrate's Court of Busia erred by failing to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the illegal judgment. The respondent's failure to rebut the applicant's affidavit evidence meant those facts were deemed admitted. The court held that once an illegality is brought to its attention, it cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, both the proceedings and orders of the Buteba LCIII Court and the Chief Magistrate's Court of…
Source excerpt
Ntundubeire & Ors v Murema & Ors (H.C.C.M.A NO. 59/99) [2004] UGHC 73 (11 February 2004)
The High Court allowed revision, held that the lower court failed to address ownership of disputed land, and ordered a retrial with costs to follow the outcome.
Rex v Kyononeka and Another (Cr.A 69/1934.) [1937] EACA 151 (1 January 1937)
The Court held that, despite the appellants being charged with the murder of the same person, the fact that they were indicted separately but tried together rendered the proceedings a nullity. The principles of English law, as reflected in section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code Uganda, require that accused persons be properly joined in the same information for a joint trial. The consent of the accused to the irregular procedure does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, the convictions were set aside and a retrial was ordered.
Source excerpt
