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
Barazar & 4 Others v Mukhwana & 36 Others (Miscellaneous Application 267 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 855 (11 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to join additional defendants, holding that the applicants failed to file the required powers of attorney at the time of filing.
Tumheise v Turyasingura (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 96 (6 July 2022)
The High Court dismissed a second appeal for incompetence because the appellant did not obtain leave to appeal, and a letter requesting proceedings was not a valid application.
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).
Attorney General v Lutaaya (Civil Application 1 of 2007) [2007] UGSC 26 (29 March 2007)
The Supreme Court held that the requirement to support an application for extension of time with a valid affidavit is mandatory under Rule 43(1) and relevant statutory provisions. The purported affidavit by the applicant was not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths and therefore did not constitute an affidavit in law. Without sworn evidence, the court cannot be satisfied that sufficient reason exists to exercise its discretion to extend time. The defect is substantive, not merely procedural, and cannot be cured by the court's discretionary powers. Consequently, the application was found inco…
Source excerpt
Bakamwoga v Kencuriko and Another (Civil Appeal 32 of 2003) [2004] UGCA 31 (29 July 2004)
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory timelines for filing the notice of appeal and serving the record of appeal as stipulated by the Court of Appeal Rules. The delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. While Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution allows courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, this does not permit disregard of clear procedural requirements. The court upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the appeal as incompetent, awarding costs to the respondents.
Source excerpt
The City Division Council of Rubaga v Jimmy Muyanja (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002) [2004] UGCA 40 (18 March 2004)
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the respondent failed to prove service of the mandatory statutory notice before filing suit against the local authority.
Michael Kibirango v Shell (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 75 of 2001) [2001] UGCA 65 (16 November 2001)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution because the notice of appeal related to a different High Court decision, making the application incompetent.
Jo' Okello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Application 17 of 1996) [1996] UGSC 31 (13 September 1996)
The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to grant extension of time for lodging a Notice of Appeal, holding that procedural blunders by counsel should not be visited upon innocent litigants. The applicant had duly instructed his lawyer, and the failure to serve the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time was solely the lawyer's error. Striking out the appeal did not preclude the applicant from seeking leave to file a fresh appeal, and justice required that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to have his appeal heard on the merits. The court found sufficient reason to extend time, e…
Source excerpt
Transocean (U) Limited v Katende, Ssempebwa & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal 30 of 1994) [1994] UGHC 66 (21 June 1994)
The High Court struck out an application for stay of execution in a taxation appeal, holding it was brought under the wrong procedure and was therefore incompetent.
Old East Africa Trading Company Limited v Jetha (Appeal No. 13 of 1956) [1950] EACA 264 (1 January 1950)
The appeal was dismissed as incompetent because the High Court order had not been extracted before lodging the appeal, leaving no order to appeal from.
