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
Damanico Properties Limited v Kaserebe and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 760 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 27 (18 February 2022)
The High Court ordered the plaintiffs to disclose the value of the subject matter and prove payment of requisite fees within 30 days in a consolidated land dispute.
Kategaya Betsimbire v Sebaliga and Another (Civil Application 288 of 2019) [2019] UGCA 2108 (2 December 2019)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution as incompetent because it concerned the wrong High Court suit and did not comply with Rule 42(1).
Mutesi v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 241 OF 2016) [2016] UGHCCD 137 (12 December 2016)
The High Court refused leave to amend a judicial review motion, holding the proposed changes would alter the cause of action and prejudice the respondent.
Motorcare (U) Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-CS 638 of 2005) [2007] UGCommC 70 (26 July 2007)
The court found that the plaintiff's plaint, although defective in its particulars regarding interest, nonetheless disclosed a sufficient cause of action against the defendant. The omission or defect in pleading interest was attributed to a drafting error, given the timing of payment and suit filing, and was not fatal to the claim. The court held that amendments to pleadings, including oral applications during trial, are permissible under Ugandan law to enable determination of the real issues. The preliminary objection was overruled, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the plaint wit…
Source excerpt
Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 31 of 1995) [1997] UGSC 21 (3 April 1997)
The Supreme Court held that the amendments to the plaint, including the correction of the plaintiff's name, did not constitute an unlawful substitution of parties but rather a permissible correction of a misnomer, as both parties were aware of the proper identity and no injustice resulted. The appellant failed to object to the amendments in the lower court and participated fully in the proceedings. The trial Judge exercised judicial discretion properly in refusing adjournments and amendments where insufficient cause was shown, and the exclusion of evidence outside the pleadings was lawful. Th…
Source excerpt
