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
Mukwaya v Katarangye (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1065 (28 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal out of time because it was unsupported by affidavit evidence and raised factual grounds needing proof.
Mugisa v Kyahurwenda (Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 514 (15 March 2024)
The High Court at Fort Portal dismissed an unserved motion seeking to set aside taxation hearing notices, holding that hearing notices are not court decisions and the remedies sought were unavailable.
Byakutaga v Kakururu (Civil Revision 8 of 2021) [2022] UGHC 124 (15 December 2022)
The High Court struck out a revision motion for failing to state its grounds as required by Order 52 rule 3, and held it lacked revision jurisdiction over LC courts.
Kinyara Sugar Limited v Kyomuhendo (Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 179 (4 October 2021)
The court held that the requirement for a notice of motion to bear the signature of a judicial officer and the seal of the court is a substantive legal requirement, not a mere technicality. The absence of these elements constitutes a fundamental defect that cannot be cured, rendering the application incompetent and a nullity. The court relied on established case law and statutory provisions, emphasizing that such requirements safeguard the authenticity and authority of court processes and prevent abuse. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and extend time to file a…
Source excerpt
Kwezi and 2 Others v Kyomuhendo Mugungu and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCD 182 (6 September 2021)
The court held that while the failure to accompany the Notice of Motion with a summary of evidence, list of witnesses, and authorities is not fatal due to the specific provisions governing motions supported by affidavit, the failure to serve the application within the mandatory 21-day period prescribed by O.5 r.1(2) CPR, without seeking an extension, is fatal. The mandatory nature of the service timeline cannot be cured by constitutional technicality provisions. As a result, the application is incompetent and must be dismissed. The court exercised its discretion to reject the objection regard…
Source excerpt
Isingoma v Law Development Centre (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 38 (28 February 2020)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review application as incompetent because the motion lacked proper court authentication, the affidavit was uncommissioned, and the applicant signed as counsel without being an advocate.
Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative and Others (Appeal 3 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 50 (26 May 2017) (Appellate Division)
The Appellate Division found that the Trial Court erred in law and procedure by failing to determine the preliminary objection regarding the competence of the supporting affidavit before proceeding to the merits of the Application. This omission constituted an incurable procedural irregularity, vitiating the Trial Court's ruling. The Appellate Division held that the requirements of Rule 21 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure were not properly addressed, and the failure to resolve the preliminary objection prejudiced the Appellant and denied due process. Consequently, the i…
Source excerpt
Samwiri Kibuuka v Eriya Lugeya Lubanga (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 656 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 56 (30 September 2005)
The court held that while a Notice of Motion supported by affidavit is exempt from the general requirements of Order 6 rule 1(b) CPR, the affidavit in support of the application was defective because it failed to distinguish between facts based on the deponent's knowledge and those based on information and belief, as required by Order 17 rule 3(1) CPR. The absence of such distinction rendered the affidavit unreliable and insufficient to support the application. The court further held that failure to cite the enabling law in the application was a mere technicality and not fatal. However, due t…
Source excerpt
Dominiko SSalongo v Ekowasi Kiwanuka (Civil Appeal No.67 of 1998) (Civil Appeal No.67 of 1998) [2001] UGHC 90 (24 May 2001)
The court held that the learned magistrate erred in upholding substituted service by newspaper without evidence that personal service on the appellant, his agent, or a family member was attempted and failed. The defect in the Notice of Motion was not fatal, as the accompanying affidavit disclosed non-service as the ground for the application. The magistrate failed to satisfy himself that substituted service was justified, and thus the ex parte judgment and related orders were set aside. The appellant was granted leave to defend the suit, and costs were to abide the outcome of the main suit.
Source excerpt
Sewamala v Bembe & 6 Ors (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2014) [1993] UGHCCD 6 (12 October 1993)
The High Court dismissed an application to review or set aside a stay of execution order, finding it procedurally defective and brought under the wrong rule.
