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
Serwada v TSMP (U) Limited (Civil Revision 19 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 571 (20 May 2024)
The High Court revised a magistrate’s dismissal of a Bill of Costs, holding that taxation should proceed ex parte under the Advocates Regulations, not be dismissed under Order 9 Rule 22 CPR.
Muzanyi & 3 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 42 of 2015) [2024] UGCC 6 (21 February 2024)
The Constitutional Court held that the discontinuance of criminal proceedings by the DPP under Article 120(3)(d) is an exclusive function, but the Constitution and section 121(a) of the Magistrates Court Act do not bar the DPP or authorized officers from reinstating criminal proceedings against an accused who was discharged before being called to make a defence. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 28(9) and (10) only applies where there has been a conviction, acquittal, or pardon, none of which applied to the Petitioners. The reinstatement of charges by the Ag. Senior State A…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Hon. Mao and 2 Others (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCRD 153 (6 July 2023)
The High Court found that the magistrate erroneously dismissed the complaint on oath for lack of a letter from the local chief, as the law places the duty to consult the local chief on the magistrate, not the complainant. The requirement for a supporting letter is discretionary for the complainant, and its absence does not render the complaint incompetent. The magistrate also erred in finding lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the complaint specified the city and division, which are sufficient under the Magisterial Areas Instrument. Furthermore, the magistrate wrongly required the appellant…
Source excerpt
Besigye & Another v Uganda (Criminal Application 121 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCRD 167 (30 June 2022)
The High Court dismissed a bail application as prematurely filed, holding that the applicant had to first seek bail from the Chief Magistrate after refusal by a Grade One Magistrate.
Besigye & Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCRD 25 (30 June 2022)
The High Court dismissed a bail application as premature, holding that the applicants should first have applied to the Chief Magistrate after refusal by a Grade One Magistrate.
Uganda v Nkalubo (Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2021) [2021] UGCA 72 (13 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal struck out Uganda’s appeal, holding there was no statutory right of appeal from a High Court revision decision before conviction or acquittal.
Sewava Ssalongo and 18 Others v Male Mukasa and 2 Others (Revision Application 34 of 2018) [2021] UGHCLD 471 (1 March 2021)
The High Court partly allowed a revision application, permitting cross-examination of a co-defendant’s witness but upholding a costs order against absent applicants.
Kiggwa & Ors v Uganda (Revision Cause No. 005 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 40 (7 August 2019)
The High Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any grave injustice or manifest error in law that would justify the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The application was deemed a disguised appeal, as it sought re-evaluation of evidence, which is not the proper function of revision proceedings. The court emphasized that revisional powers are reserved for correcting grave injustice or procedural defects, not for addressing dissatisfaction with a prima facie finding. The application was dismissed as misconceived and an abuse of process, and the trial was ordered to resume befor…
Source excerpt
Naluwooza v Namwandu Yake Lunkuse Kyaze& 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No.59 of 2009) [2009] UGHC 149 (2 April 2009)
The High Court held that costs could not be awarded under Order 25 against deceased respondents. It set aside the magistrate’s costs order and remitted the suit.
Uganda v Herbert Karambuzi (CR. CASE NO, 15 OF 95) [1996] UGHC 80 (1 July 1996)
The High Court set aside a magistrate’s discharge of an accused in an abduction case, holding that section 156 reconciliation provisions did not apply.
