Uganda Case Law

Eddie Kwizera v Electoral Commission and Another

Eddie Kwizera v Electoral Commission and Another (Constitutional Application No. 04 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 402 (6 October 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Application No. 04 of 2020

Judge

Buteera, DCJ, Bamugemereire, JA, Kibeedi Mutangula, JA, Mulyagonja, JA, Kihika ,JA

The court found that the application for contempt against the second respondent was barred by law, as Section 49 of the Electoral Commission Act grants immunity from civil proceedings for acts done in good faith, and the applicant failed to plead or demonstrate bad faith. The application was also found to be an abuse of court process and frivolous, as it was filed prematurely before the expiry of the time frames set by the Constitutional Court for the respondents to comply with its orders. The court held that no contempt had occurred at the time of filing, and subsequent events, including the…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Parliamentary Elections
• Immunity Of Public Officials
• Premature Application

Otto v Okot & 2 Ors

Otto v Okot & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 158 of 2014) [2019] UGHCCD 61 (12 February 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 158 of 2014

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court dismissed an application for judgment in default against third parties, holding that proper third-party procedure, service, and a decree against the defendant were missing.

• Third Party Proceedings
• Default Judgment
• Premature Application
• Third-party-proceedings
• Default-judgment
• Civil-procedure

Democratic party & anor v Attorney general & anor

Democratic party & anor v Attorney general & anor (Cause No. 372 of 2013 Out of Eacj Ref 06/2010 & App No. 06 of 2011) [2014] UGHCCD 159 (2 April 2014)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Cause No. 372 of 2013 Out of Eacj Ref 06/2010 & App No. 06 of 2011

Judge

Nyanzi, J

The court held that the application for mandamus was premature because the applicants filed it before obtaining and serving a certificate of order against government as required by section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act. The statutory duty to pay only arises after such certificate is issued and served. Since the application was filed before this mandatory step was completed, there was no legal basis for the issuance of mandamus. The omission was incurable, as the certificate could not retrospectively validate the premature filing. The court relied on established case law and statutory p…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Mandamus
• Government Proceedings
• Certificate Of Order
• Premature Application

Captain Kabareebe v Banyenzaki

Captain Kabareebe v Banyenzaki (Civil Revision No. 16 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 145 (4 November 2013)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Revision No. 16 of 2013

The High Court dismissed a revision and stay application, holding that the magistrate acted properly in treating an earlier motion as premature and that stay requirements were not met.

• Revision Of Magistrates Orders
• Ex Parte Judgment
• Stay Of Execution
• Premature Application
• Natural Justice Violation
• Revision-of-magistrates-orders