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
Mulondo v Wasajja (Miscellaneous Application 1371 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 427 (11 October 2023)
The High Court reinstated a long-running land suit after finding sufficient cause to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution caused by counsel’s mistake.
Jetha Brothers Ltd Vs Mbarara Municipal Council & 4 Ors (Civil Applic. No 256 of 2013) [2015] UGCA 33 (10 March 2015)
The Court of Appeal granted Jetha Brothers Ltd leave to serve its appeal documents out of time, holding the omission was a counsel’s mistake and not inordinate delay.
Mulowooza and Brothers Ltd v N. Shah and Co. Ltd (Civil Application 20 of 2010) [2010] UGSC 36 (6 October 2010)
The Supreme Court of Uganda extended time for service of a Notice of Appeal, finding the delay inadvertent and not inordinate, and ordered service within two days.
Attorney General v A.K.P.M Lutaya (Civil Application 12 of 2007) [2007] UGSC 29 (13 June 2007)
The court held that the application was competent because the previous application had been struck out for being unsupported by a valid affidavit, not dismissed on its merits. Therefore, the judge was not functus officio and could entertain the new application. The court found that the lapses and mistakes in the Attorney General's Chambers, including poor file handover and lack of coordination, constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The affidavit by the Acting Director of Civil Litigation was deemed competent, as he had knowledge of the department's affairs. The court emphasized that lit…
Source excerpt
Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank Of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 24 (15 February 1999)
The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal failed in its duty as the first appellate court to properly re-evaluate the evidence and wrongly interfered with the trial judge's exercise of discretion. The appellant's failure to deposit cash as security for costs was due to a mistaken belief by counsel that a bank guarantee would suffice and bureaucratic delays in international money transfer, both of which, on the facts and supported by affidavit evidence, constituted sufficient cause. The respondent's affidavit in opposition was defective and did not adequately rebut the appellant's evide…
Source excerpt
