Uganda Case Law

Uganda Air Cargo Corporation Limited v Moses Kirunda and Others

Uganda Air Cargo Corporation Limited v Moses Kirunda and Others (Civil Appeal 208 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 168 (9 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 208 of 2015

Judge

Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC, Musa Ssekaana, JA/JCC, Stella Alibateese, JA/JCC

The Court of Appeal found that the Attorney General entered into the consent judgment without express instructions or approval from the appellant's accounting officer, and failed to consult senior officials or obtain written authorization. The evidence showed that the State Attorney acted under a mistake and misapprehension of material facts, and misrepresented the approval of the Attorney General. The consent judgment included claims not attributable to the appellant and was not signed by the appellant's senior officials, violating court policy. The court held that grounds for setting aside…

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgment
• Authority Of Counsel
• Setting Aside Agreements
• Unlawful Termination
• Misrepresentation
• Mistake In Contract

Steel Rollings Mills Ltd v Habib Oil Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2015)

Steel Rollings Mills Ltd v Habib Oil Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2015) [2015] UGCommC 145 (12 May 2015)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2015

The High Court refused review of a consent judgment, holding that the 19% default interest clause was clear, self-executing, and not shown to be mistaken or contrary to policy.

• Review Of Judgment
• Consent Judgment
• Interest On Judgment Debt
• Mistake In Contract
• Court Policy
• Abuse Of Process

Game Concepts v Mweru

Game Concepts v Mweru (Civil Appeal No.71 of 2012) [2014] UGHCCD 60 (16 April 2014)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No.71 of 2012

The court found that no valid gaming contract existed between the parties because the respondent placed his bet after the match had already been played and the results were publicly available. Uncertainty is a fundamental requirement for a wagering contract, and in this case, the event was no longer uncertain at the time of contracting. Both parties operated under a mutual mistake regarding the timing of the match, which went to the root of the contract and rendered it void ab initio. The offer to refund the stake was consistent with the appellant's posted terms and conditions and did not val…

Source excerpt

• Betting Contracts
• Mistake In Contract
• Void Ab Initio
• Contractual Remedies