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
Mukasa & 2 Others v Nakyaze & 24 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1979 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 238 (8 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time to appeal and to set aside an abatement order, finding no sufficient cause for the delay.
Rwegumisa & Another v Mulindwa (Miscellaneous Appeal 6 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 122 (24 May 2024)
The court found that the application, though titled as a 'Miscellaneous Appeal', was in substance an application for review and setting aside of a ruling, and was therefore properly before the court. However, the applicants failed to clearly specify or substantiate any of the statutory grounds for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, and the reason advanced—that their reply and submissions were not considered—did not amount to sufficient cause, as the c…
Source excerpt
Mukwaya and 2 Others v Twaha Kizito and Another (Civil Application 63 of 2022) [2022] UGCA 329 (25 August 2022)
The court found that while the applicants had filed a substantive omnibus application for leave to appeal and stay of execution, and there was a demonstrated serious threat of execution, they failed to establish the existence of a competent notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was not endorsed by the Deputy Registrar, and in interlocutory matters, leave of court is required before a notice of appeal can be validly lodged. The absence of the Registrar's signature rendered the notice defective and incompetent. Since the existence of a competent notice of appeal is a mandatory condition for th…
Source excerpt
Kato Bumali v Uganda [2020] UGSC 14 (26 June 2020)
The application before the Supreme Court improperly combines two distinct requests: extension of time to apply for a certificate of importance and the substantive application for the certificate itself. Under Rule 50(1), (2)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, a single Justice lacks jurisdiction to hear an application for a certificate of importance, which must be determined by a panel of at least three Justices. While the single Justice has jurisdiction to consider the extension of time, the consolidated nature of the application precludes partial determination. Furthermore, the procedural requir…
Source excerpt
Kasese Cobolt Company Limited v Kabagambe (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2019) [2019] UGIC 215 (2 December 2019)
The court found that the respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time and without leave of court, rendering it incompetent and inadmissible. On the substantive application, the court held that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and seeking leave to appeal on both law and fact. The delay was primarily occasioned by administrative failures within the court system, specifically the delayed transfer of the file from the High Court to the Industrial Court, rather than by any dilatory conduct on the part of the applicant. The court…
Source excerpt
Okullu & 3 Others v Lacen (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2017) [2019] UGHC 43 (29 August 2019)
The High Court held that reinstatement of a suit and substitution of parties are distinct applications. The omnibus application should have been severed, not dismissed.
