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, 04:30 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

23 Nov 2020

Constitutional Law [2020] EACJ 17

Ssembuusi v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Ssembuusi v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No.16 of 2014) [2020] EACJ 17 (23 November 2020) (First Instance Division)

Court: East African Court of Justice
Case number: Reference No.16 of 2014
Judge: Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye J, Nyachae J

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to determine the Reference without requiring exhaustion of local remedies, as the Treaty does not impose such a requirement. However, the Court found that the challenge to the continued enforcement of criminal defamation laws (sections 179 and 180 of the Penal Code Act) was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, as the Reference was filed long after the impugned provisions came into force and the Treaty does not recognize continuing violations. Regarding the applicant's conviction and sentence, the Court found no evidence that the decision of th…

Source excerpt

Freedom Of Expression
Criminal Defamation
Access To Information
Media Freedom

Read case analysis

23 May 2019

Constitutional Law [2019] UGHCCD 252

Uganda Journalists Association & 2 Others v Uganda Communications Commisson

Uganda Journalists Association & 2 Others v Uganda Communications Commisson (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO. 279 & 287 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 252 (23 May 2019)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO. 279 & 287 OF 2019
Judge: Mugambe, J

The court found that the Applicants had standing to bring the application for judicial review as their constitutional rights were directly affected by the Respondent's directive. The relevant status quo to be preserved was the state of affairs before the Respondent's directive of 30th April 2019. The court was unable to conclusively determine at this stage whether the Applicants had a prima facie case with high chances of success or would suffer irreparable loss, and thus decided the application on the balance of convenience. The court held that the Respondent's directive had the far-reaching…