Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:46 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

2 Mar 2012

Election Petitions [2012] UGHC 398

Kikongo v Electoral Commission & Anor

Kikongo v Electoral Commission & Anor (Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 398 (2 March 2012)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011
Judge: Yasin, J

The High Court held that the use of 'shall' in Section 6 of the Oaths Act is directory rather than mandatory, in line with appellate authority and constitutional principles favoring substantive justice over technicalities. The presence of undated affidavits served on parties did not vitiate the petition, as the affidavits on the court record were properly dated and sworn. The trial magistrate erred by dismissing the entire petition instead of simply expunging the offending affidavits, as requested by the respondents. The correct procedure would have been to strike out only the defective affid…

Source excerpt

Affidavit Requirements
Oaths Act Interpretation
Mandatory Vs Directory Statutory Language
Procedural Irregularities
Costs Award
Striking Out Affidavits

Read case analysis

20 Nov 1998

Election Petitions [1998] UGCA 55

Byaruhanga Katumba v Kiwalabye Musoke

Byaruhanga Katumba v Kiwalabye Musoke (Civil Appeal 2 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 55 (20 November 1998)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal 2 of 1998
Judge: Okello, JA, Berko, JA, Twinomujuni, JA

The Court of Appeal held that Section 143(2) of the Local Government Act 1997, which prescribes a ninety-day period for determination of election petitions, is directory and not mandatory. The section is intended to ensure expeditious resolution of election disputes, not to oust the jurisdiction of the court if the period is exceeded. The use of 'shall' in the provision does not, by itself, make it mandatory, and there is no express or clear language in the Act indicating that the court's jurisdiction is lost after the prescribed period. The court retains inherent power to extend the time lim…