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
Bitangaro & Co. Advocates v Emmanuel Katto (Civil Suit No. 92 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 2 (25 February 2009)
The High Court struck out an advocate’s fee claim, holding there was no retainer, no taxed bill of costs or fixed-fee agreement, and no cause of action against the defendant.
Singh v Singh and Another (Civ. Case No. 152 of 1937) [1938] EACA 210 (1 January 1938)
The court held that the plaintiff, though in possession of the promissory note, could not sue on it in his own name because the note was payable to order and had not been endorsed to him. The statutory definition of 'holder' requires that the person suing must be either the payee or endorsee in possession, or the bearer if the note is payable to bearer. Since the plaintiff had negotiated the note and it had been endorsed to another party, his rights as payee were extinguished. Mere possession, without endorsement, does not confer the right to sue. Furthermore, the court found that the causes…
Source excerpt
Patel v Govind (Civil Case No. 143 of 1939) [1938] EACA 180 (1 January 1938)
The court held that presentment for payment is a necessary condition to render the indorser of a promissory note liable, even when the note does not specify a particular place of payment. The distinction between the liability of the maker and the indorser is clear under the Bills of Exchange Ordinance: while presentment may be unnecessary for the maker in certain circumstances, it is expressly required for the indorser. The plaintiff failed to prove that presentment was made, and his argument that presentment was unnecessary was rejected. Furthermore, the transaction was found to be a moneyle…
Source excerpt
Chand v Majid and Another (C.A. 17/1933.) [1933] EACJ 5 (1 January 1933)
The court held that Order XXXIII procedure was distinct from the older code provisions, so Article 5 of the Indian Limitation Act did not justify dismissal as time-barred.
Tyson Brothers Limited v Mulji (C.C. 96/1930 (Msa.).) [1930] EACA 83 (1 January 1930)
The court held that Section 106 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance did not extend Article 5 limitation beyond negotiable instruments without an amendment to the Limitation Act.
Premji v Janmohamed (C.A. 25/1930 (Msa.).) [1930] EACA 131 (1 January 1930)
The court held that erasing the original payee’s name and inserting another without the acceptor’s consent was a material alteration discharging the acceptor.
