Uganda Case Law

Nanding & 6 Others v Attorney General

Nanding & 6 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 22 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 127 (16 August 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 22 of 2024

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the applicants' salaries had been enhanced in 2010 pursuant to a Presidential Directive, and this enhancement was implemented and maintained for over a decade, creating a legitimate expectation. The Ministry of Public Service's unilateral reduction of the applicants' salaries in 2022, without a hearing or lawful justification, was illegal, irrational, and in breach of Articles 28, 42, and 158(1) of the Constitution. The Ministry could not lawfully reverse a Presidential Directive or vary the applicants' contractual terms without due process. The court held that the applic…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Legitimate Expectation
• Public Service Salaries
• Presidential Directives
• Natural Justice
• Employment Contracts

Springs International Hotel v Attorney General and 2 Others (Misc Cause No. 8 of 2022)

Springs International Hotel v Attorney General and 2 Others (Misc Cause No. 8 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 203 (17 October 2022)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause No. 8 of 2022

Judge

Nkonge, J

The High Court dismissed an application seeking enforcement of presidential directives to help the applicant take possession of land, finding the request procedurally improper.

• Eviction Orders
• Possession Of Land
• Presidential Directives
• Service Of Process
• Land-possession
• Eviction

Lubega v Attorney General & Ors

Lubega v Attorney General & Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2011) [2015] UGCC 13 (3 November 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2011

The court determined that the petition did not raise any question for constitutional interpretation as required under Article 137 of the Constitution. The President's letter was found to be an urging rather than a directive, order, or instruction, and thus did not constitute an act requiring constitutional interpretation. The court distinguished between the enforcement and interpretation of constitutional provisions, holding that the petitioner was seeking enforcement of rights related to property ownership, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. The preliminary obj…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Property Rights
• Presidential Directives
• Committee Of Inquiry
• Preliminary Objections