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
Nampogo & Anor v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 246 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 70 (20 April 2017)
The High Court held that a fresh mandamus application was barred by res judicata because an earlier mandamus order already existed and remained unenforced.
In Re:Wamara Christine (HCT-05-CV-MA-0039-2004) [2004] UGHC 68 (30 August 2004)
The High Court dismissed an application for mandamus and prohibition after finding the request premature and the headmaster not personally liable for costs.
In The matter Of Application For an Order Of Certiorari and or Prohibition By Mustapha (Miscellaneous Application 230 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 68 (21 May 1996)
The High Court dismissed an ex parte leave application for certiorari and prohibition, holding it was time-barred and that statutory appeal remedies were available.
Queen v Chairman and Members of the Central Rent Control Board; Ex Parte: Corbett Limited (Civil Proceeding No. 14 of 1955) [1955] EACA 137 (1 January 1955)
The Court held that the Rent Control Board acted within its jurisdiction in assessing the standard rent in 1948, and there was no denial of natural justice since the applicant was given an opportunity to provide information and participate in the process. The Board's procedure was consistent with the requirements for quasi-judicial tribunals, which are not obliged to hold oral hearings but must allow parties to correct or contradict prejudicial statements. The application for certiorari failed on the merits, as no error of law appeared on the face of the record, and the assessment was not sho…
Source excerpt
In Re: of an Application For Directions; In Re: of the Nature of Habeas Corpus By Keshavlal Punja Parbat Shah (Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 1954) [1955] EACA 323 (1 January 1955)
The Court held that, although the substance of the appellant's application for habeas corpus related to his detention under a deportation order and was not a criminal cause or matter, the application was made under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code and entered on the criminal side of the Supreme Court. There is no precedent for converting a criminal proceeding into a civil one for the purposes of appeal. The Court found itself bound by the previous decisions in Lall Khan v. R. and Makhan Singh v. Principal Immigration Officer, which held that prerogative writs are to be issued under…
Source excerpt
