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
Allies DBT Africa Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 298 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 192 (12 June 2024)
The High Court held that a multiyear procurement contract lacked evidence of parliamentary approval and that phases 2 and 3 were never initiated, so the suit was dismissed.
Initiative for Social Economic Rights v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 7 of 2019) [2024] UGCC 13 (13 May 2024)
The court held that the acts of the Ministries of Health and Finance, Planning and Economic Development in entering into the project agreements and the subsequent issuance of promissory notes for the International Specialised Hospital of Uganda did not contravene Article 159 (2), (5), and (6) of the Constitution. The agreements were executed pursuant to existing policy frameworks and statutory provisions, and the necessary parliamentary approval was obtained before the promissory notes were enforced. The court found that the requirement for public participation under Article 38 was satisfied…
Source excerpt
Mugisha and Another v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition 19 of 2017) [2023] UGCC 122 (27 January 2023)
The Constitutional Court held that the appointment of a serving UPDF officer as Minister of State is not inconsistent with the Constitution, provided the officer is a Member of Parliament or qualified to be elected as such. The Court found no constitutional requirement for resignation from the army prior to appointment and reaffirmed that UPDF representatives in Parliament retain their non-partisan status even when appointed as Ministers. The Court rejected the argument that secondment under Section 38(2) of the UPDF Act or the Oath of Allegiance contravenes constitutional provisions, emphasi…
Source excerpt
Kamba Saleh v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 2012) [2015] UGCC 3 (25 May 2015)
The Constitutional Court found that the petition disclosed a cause of action and the petitioner had locus standi under Article 137(3) of the Constitution. However, the court held that the Appointments Committee of Parliament acted within its constitutional and procedural mandate in considering and either approving or disapproving ministerial appointments. The Committee provided the petitioner with a hearing, and there was no evidence that the petitioner was denied access to information or treated unfairly. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of religious discrimination and infringement…
Source excerpt
Dhikusooka & 21 Others v The Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 10 of 2009) [2009] UGCC 6 (17 July 2009)
The court held that parliamentary approval is a constitutional requirement under Article 223(4) for the IGG and Deputy IGG to serve their respective second terms in office under Article 223(7). The relevant constitutional provisions must be read together to give effect to the intention of the Constitution. A re-appointment is considered a fresh appointment, and therefore, the same approval process applies. The acts of the President and other officers in seeking parliamentary approval were constitutional, and the refusal of the IGG to appear before the Appointments Committee was unconstitution…
Source excerpt
