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
Masiko v Magara and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 39 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 87 (31 January 2025)
The High Court at Hoima dismissed a civil appeal, upheld the competence of a late-filed memorandum by excluding time spent preparing the record, and confirmed the bill of costs proceedings.
Kilagela v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 017/2018) [2024] AfCHPR 17 (3 September 2024)
The African Court held Tanzania violated the Applicant’s right to free legal assistance in a serious criminal case, but rejected his other Charter claims.
Ategeka v Uganda (Criminal Revision 74 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 60 (19 July 2024)
The High Court found that the applicant was denied the right to legal representation during the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, a right protected under Article 28 of the Constitution. The lower court failed to inquire into the absence of counsel or to ensure the applicant’s right to effective cross-examination, especially given the late disclosure of prosecution evidence. The trial magistrate’s refusal to allow the applicant’s lawyers to recall the witness for cross-examination constituted a material irregularity and a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial. Th…
Source excerpt
Acungwire v Mumtaz Kassam and Others (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2019) [2023] UGHCLD 41 (28 February 2023)
The court found that the DAPCB, as a public body, is subject to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (2003) and failed to provide evidence of compliance in procuring the legal services of M/s. Guma & Co Advocates. On the authority of Attorney General & Hon. Nyombi Peter v. Uganda Law Society, the court held that such non-compliance renders the representation illegal. Furthermore, the court determined that M/s. Guma & Co Advocates' simultaneous representation of both the DAPCB and the plaintiff (Justice Acungwire), who are in a legal dispute over the same property, creates…
Source excerpt
Ssejemba v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 28 (5 October 2021)
The Constitutional Court held that small claims rules did not remove the right of appeal, but rules barring advocates and cross-examination were unconstitutional.
Kagumaho v Rama (Civil Revision 11 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 35 (28 May 2021)
The court found no evidence on record that the applicant notified the trial magistrate of the withdrawal of Misc. Cause No. 40 of 2019, nor was the withdrawal letter on court record or served on the respondent at the relevant time. The applicant's allegations of being denied the right to file a rejoinder and to legal representation were unsupported by the lower court proceedings, which showed no such requests. The court held that the trial magistrate exercised jurisdiction properly, without illegality, material irregularity, or injustice. The application for revision was therefore dismissed,…
Source excerpt
Lyambaka v United Republic of Tanzania [2020] AfCHPR 30 (25 September 2020)
The African Court held it had jurisdiction over Hamad Mohamed Lyambaka’s application, but found it inadmissible because it was not filed within a reasonable time.
Matovu Ssimbwa & Another v Kamya & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 463 of 2014) [2019] UGHCFD 50 (20 December 2019)
The High Court reviewed and set aside an earlier interim ruling after finding an error on the face of the record, including failure to consider reply evidence and a date clerical error.
Nsabimana Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2013) [2016] UGCA 74 (7 December 2016)
The Court found no credible evidence that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the offence; witness testimony and medical evidence indicated normal mental status. The burden to prove diminished responsibility was not discharged by the defence. The confession statement was improperly admitted without a trial-within-a-trial, but even excluding it, circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established the appellant's guilt. The appellant was legally represented at trial, and lack of objection or cross-examination did not amount to absence of representation. The death sentence was deemed…
Source excerpt
Attorney General & Anor v Uganda Law society (Misc. Cause No. 321 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 99 (18 August 2014)
The High Court held that the Attorney General’s retention of private counsel had to comply with public procurement law, and disqualified Kampala Associated Advocates from representing him.
