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
Kulabako v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0206 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 92 (26 June 2025)
The High Court allowed judicial review, quashed the Commissioner Land Registration’s title-cancellation order, and held the decision ultra vires and procedurally unfair.
Uganda Association of Consulting Engineers Limited v Prime Minister of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 182 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 70 (13 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to PPDA Guidelines No. 3 of 2024, finding no illegality, procedural impropriety, or irrationality.
Byaruhanga v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application 235 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 54 (7 May 2025)
The High Court quashed the Commissioner Land Registration’s cancellation of a title for failure to serve the applicant and afford a fair hearing.
Ssempijja v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 41 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 221 (16 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging the planned removal of the Speaker of Masaka City because it was filed before the removal decision was made.
Mary Zawedde Mulira and Others v Commissioner for Land Registration and Others (Misc Cause No. 17 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 62 (11 April 2025)
The application was properly before the court as a judicial review against a public body. The Commissioner for Land Registration, having previously conducted a public hearing and re-registered the disputed land in the applicants' names in 2024, was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application for a vesting order on the same title. The issuance of the memorandum of registration on 9th January 2025, vesting the land in Marwa Properties Limited, was procedurally improper and illegal, as the applicants were not accorded a hearing despite their direct interest. Section…
Source excerpt
Bujagali Energy Limited v Kafumba (Civil Appeal 18 of 2021) [2025] UGSC 3 (27 February 2025)
The Supreme Court dismissed Bujagali Energy Ltd’s appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal was right to remit an improperly dismissed High Court matter for hearing on the merits.
The Registered Trustees of Shree Sanatan Dharma Mandal v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 25 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 185 (8 November 2024)
The respondent's council acted ultra vires, illegally, and irrationally by purporting to cancel the applicant's freehold estate and halt the redevelopment of Bat Valley Primary School. The powers to cancel a certificate of title are vested exclusively in the High Court and Commissioner for Land Registration, not the respondent. The respondent failed to afford the applicant a fair hearing, violating constitutional and statutory requirements of procedural fairness. The council's actions exceeded its legal mandate under the Kampala Capital City Act and were not supported by proper legal authorit…
Source excerpt
Ahweera v Attorney General (Misc Cause 102 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 194 (31 October 2024)
The High Court held that Ahweera Stephen’s discharge from the Uganda Police Force was unlawful for want of a hearing, quashed the discharge, and awarded salary arrears and costs.
Ahweera v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 102 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 193 (31 October 2024)
The High Court held that Ahweera Stephen was dismissed from the Uganda Police Force without a hearing, quashed the discharge, and awarded salary arrears and costs.
Mwanje v The Attorney General of Uganda (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Cause 100 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 176 (31 October 2024)
The court found that the Select Committee and Parliament exceeded their constitutional and statutory mandate by making findings and recommendations against the applicant outside the terms of reference, specifically regarding his employment and alleged illegal practice of accountancy. The applicant was not given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to specific allegations, violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under Articles 28(1) and 42 of the Constitution. The committee misconstrued the Accountants Act, as the applicant's role as CFO did not constitute practici…
Source excerpt
