Uganda Case Law

Nangosha v Attorney General

Nangosha v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 229 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCD 9 (26 February 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 229 of 2018

Judge

Nambayo, J

The court found that the Respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply resulted in the admission of all facts alleged by the Applicant. The Applicant was illegally declared AWOL, struck off the pay roll, and retired from the UPDF without justification. The Applicant is entitled to unpaid salary for 126 months, pension and gratuity for 16 years of service, housing allowance for the period not accommodated, and general damages for the inconvenience and suffering caused. The court rejected claims for professional allowance, payment in lieu of untaken leave, and aggravated damages due to lac…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Retirement
• Military Service Rights
• Pension And Gratuity Entitlements
• Salary Arrears
• Housing Allowance
• General Damages

Drago v Attorney General

Drago v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.428 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCD 45 (8 February 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.428 OF 2017

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court held that a retired UPDF officer with legal qualifications was entitled to professional allowance, housing allowance, and benefits based on consolidated pay.

• Retirement Benefits
• Professional Allowance
• Housing Allowance
• Military Service Rights
• General Damages
• Constitutional Entitlements

Attorney General v Senkali and Others

Attorney General v Senkali and Others (Civil Appeal 2 of 2008) [2009] UGSC 38 (21 January 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 2 of 2008

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Tsekooko, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the successive revolutions and legal notices, particularly Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986, terminated the services of the respondents in the Uganda Army. The Court found that members of the armed forces are not public servants and thus not protected by the saving provisions applicable to civil servants. The evidence did not establish that the respondents remained members of the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) or were ever redeployed or recognized as such by the current government. The Court further held that the respondents' claims were time-barred under the appl…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Of Actions
• Termination Of Employment
• Military Service Rights
• Successor Liability
• Public Service Definition
• Constitutional Effect Of Revolution