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
Settuba v Sserunkuma (Civil Appeal 21 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 285 (12 May 2025)
The High Court allowed a land appeal after finding the trial court relied on unrecorded locus in quo observations, set aside the judgment, and ordered a retrial.
Namirembe Madalena v Tayebwa Bernard Kakongi (Revision Cause No. 028 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 58 (7 May 2025)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate grade one acted without jurisdiction in determining a suit for trespass to land, as such jurisdiction is reserved for a chief magistrate under Ugandan law. The magistrate's actions amounted to a material irregularity and illegality, rendering the judgment and orders issued on 16th September 2014 a nullity. The absence of a response from the respondent left the applicant's evidence uncontested. The High Court, exercising its revisionary powers under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, set aside the orders of the magistrate grade one and directe…
Source excerpt
Vivo Energy Company Uganda Limited v Kamarayo (Revision Application 5 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1153 (13 December 2024)
The trial Chief Magistrate erred in law by awarding general damages to the respondent after a partial consent judgment had conclusively resolved all issues except costs. The Magistrate was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to revisit the issue of general damages, which had been foregone by the respondent in the consent judgment. The award of Ugx 5,000,000/= as general damages was unlawful and occasioned grave injustice to the applicant. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 83 CPA, set aside the lower court's order regarding general damages, maintaining o…
Source excerpt
Mabirizi v Obore & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Appeal 9 of 2024) [2024] UGHCACD 11 (3 December 2024)
The High Court held that the magistrate has the statutory authority to determine whether a private prosecution complaint is frivolous or vexatious, even in cases involving offences triable only by the High Court, such as money laundering. The process requires the magistrate to consider the complaint, consult the local chief, and, if necessary, direct police investigations before making a decision. The appellant's assertion that only the High Court can determine the sufficiency of a money laundering complaint was rejected. The magistrate erred by dismissing the application without conducting t…
Source excerpt
Katarikawe v Kanakulya and 3 Others (Civil Revision 8 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 508 (13 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed a revision application challenging a 30-day stay of execution granted by a magistrate, holding the magistrate had jurisdiction and the issue was moot.
Patel and Another v Pancha (Criminal Appeals Nos. 613 and 614 of 1948 consolidated) [1948] EACA 90 (1 January 1948)
The court held that an affidavit alone was not enough for section 42 peace-bond proceedings and set aside the costs order because no costs power applied.
Honourable the Attorney General v Hill and Nakuru Press Limited (Criminal Appeal (Case Stated) No. 16 of 1948) [1948] EACA 58 (1 January 1948)
The court held that where a Magistrate has refused to commit an accused for trial, it is highly doubtful that the procedure by way of case stated is available to the prosecutor. The Magistrate failed to comply with the statutory requirements for a proper case stated, as no legal question was set out and the case was incomplete. The court, guided by English authorities such as Foss v. Best and Reg. v. London (County) Justices, found that the statutory language and principles underlying criminal procedure do not support the availability of case stated after an acquittal or discharge at the comm…
Source excerpt
Rex v Kirur and Another (Revision Case No. 118 of 1942) [1942] EACA 86 (1 January 1942)
The court held that a conviction entered by a magistrate stands even if no sentence follows, and a successor magistrate cannot sentence or reopen the matter.
Rex v Chebundo and Another (Revision Cases Nos. 214 and 215 of 1942) [1942] EACA 90 (1 January 1942)
The court set aside compensation orders against two resident labourers, holding that section 27(2)(a) did not apply and that the award lacked evidential support.
Rex v Okech (Confirmation Case No. 52 of 1941) [1940] EACA 64 (1 January 1940)
The court held that a failure to sign and date a magistrate’s judgment was curable, but a successor magistrate could not sentence after a prior conviction. The trial was a nullity.
