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
One Stop Events Center Limited v Uganda Communication Commission and Another (Civil Suit 61 of 2016) [2023] UGHCCD 364 (20 November 2023)
The High Court dismissed a claim over short code 190, holding that the plaintiff failed to show a cause of action or prove any infringement of rights.
One Stop Events Centre Limited (OSEC) v Uganda Communications Commission and Another (Civil Suit 61 of 2016) [2023] UGHCCD 351 (20 November 2023)
The High Court dismissed OSEC’s claim over short code 190, finding no proved right or breach because the code was already in use and the plaintiff failed to activate it.
Modern Art Communications Limited v Attorney General (CIVIL SUIT NO. 28 OF 2014) [2020] UGHCCD 193 (18 September 2020)
The court found that the plaintiff was granted a license/permission to advertise on public service vehicles and complied with all terms and conditions. The defendant failed to prove any breach by the plaintiff. The cancellation of the license before its expiry date constituted breach of contract and was procedurally unfair, as the plaintiff was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard prior to cancellation. The defendant, through its servants, was liable for the premature cancellation and removal of adverts. The plaintiff was entitled to special damages for lost contract value, general…
Source excerpt
Jinja District Local Government v ESKOM (U) Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 4 of 2011) [2012] UGEDT 1 (19 December 2012)
The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to enforce royalty rates not fixed by ERA and referred the complaint to ERA for determination.
Mpungu & Sons Transporters Ltd v Attorney General and Anor (Civil Appeal 17 of 2001) [2006] UGSC 15 (14 March 2006)
The Supreme Court found that the appellant failed to prove fraud, bad faith, or unfair play by the Transport Licensing Board in granting a licence to the second respondent. The alleged inconsistencies in documentary evidence were credibly explained, and both the trial court and Court of Appeal made concurrent findings that were not shown to be erroneous or reached in disregard of material evidence. The court held that the Audi Alteram Partem rule, while fundamental, did not confer a right to be heard in the circumstances of this licensing dispute, as the statutory framework did not require su…
Source excerpt
Mpuugu and Sons Transporters Limited v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal 63 of 1999) [2001] UGCA 27 (27 April 2001)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in referring to the report (ID1) as it was only relevant to the viability of the route, which was abandoned as a ground of appeal. The judge's reliance on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to justify the unsigned document was improper, but no miscarriage of justice occurred. The interests of the appellant were considered by the Transport Licensing Board as required by Section 91(2)(e) of the Traffic and Road Safety Act, and the appellant was invited to meetings regarding the licence but failed to attend. There was no evidence of fr…
Source excerpt
