Uganda Case Law

M/S Rema (U) Ltd v Butebo District Local Government and Others

M/S Rema (U) Ltd v Butebo District Local Government and Others (Civil Suit No. 5 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 485 (9 July 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 5 of 2022

Judge

Lubega, J

The court held that the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act establishes a mandatory administrative review process for procurement disputes, requiring aggrieved bidders to first seek redress from the Accounting Officer, then the PPDA Authority, and finally the PPDA Tribunal. Only after exhausting these remedies may a party appeal to the High Court. The plaintiff, having only complained to the Accounting Officer and not pursued further administrative remedies, prematurely filed suit in the High Court. The court found that Parliament intended procurement matters to be addressed…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Disputes
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Administrative Review Process
• Procedural Objections

DMK Capital v Tezitta & 3 Others

DMK Capital v Tezitta & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 54 of 2022) [2023] UGCommC 248 (28 August 2023)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 54 of 2022

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The High Court dismissed an application for vacant possession over mortgaged land, holding that the amount claimed was disputed and should await resolution of the pending suit.

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Third Party Mortgage
• Vacant Possession
• Affidavit Evidence
• Default Notice
• Procedural Objections

Ask Without Shame v Nabembezi

Ask Without Shame v Nabembezi (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 801 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 78 (5 February 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 801 OF 2019

Judge

Nambayo, J

The High Court of Uganda overruled two preliminary objections, holding that an affidavit in re-joinder was not out of time and that a disputed director-removal issue could not be resolved at that stage.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Company Director Removal
• Affidavit Timelines
• Board Resolutions
• Procedural Objections
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Nsubuga v Kalibbala and Anor

Nsubuga v Kalibbala and Anor (Election Petition No. 29 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 79 (27 July 2016)

Court

Election Petitions of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition No. 29 of 2016

The High Court struck out 17 supporting affidavits in an election petition for non-compliance with affidavit formalities, then dismissed the petition with costs.

• Affidavit Compliance
• Illiterates Protection Act
• Oaths Act Requirements
• Burden Of Proof
• Election Offences
• Procedural Objections

Mukuye Steven & Ors v Madhivani Group Ltd

Mukuye Steven & Ors v Madhivani Group Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0821 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 77 (24 September 2013)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 0821 of 2013

Judge

Bashaija, J

The High Court held that only applicants who signed the written authority could be represented in the joinder application; unsigned persons were excluded.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Representative Actions
• Affidavit Requirements
• Authority To Act
• Procedural Objections
• Joinder-of-parties

Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael & 37 Ors v IGG (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007 ) (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007)

Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael & 37 Ors v IGG (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007 ) (HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007) [2008] UGHC 25 (9 December 2008)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-OO-CV-CS-0349-2007

The court found that the objections raised by the defendant were not based on pure points of law but rather on factual disputes that could only be resolved after hearing evidence. The plaintiffs were properly joined in the suit, each suing in their own right, and there was no representative suit requiring special authority. The references to NSSF contributions did not amount to enforcement of the NSSF Act but were relevant to the alleged breach of contract. The plaint disclosed a cause of action by alleging employment, breach of contract, and resulting loss, meeting the legal test for a cause…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Termination Of Employment
• Cause Of Action Requirements
• Procedural Objections
• Defamation In Employment

Mwebembezi Milton v Steven Karuti,Electoral Commission (HCT-05-CV-CA-0009-2003 ) (HCT-05-CV-CA-0009-2003)

Mwebembezi Milton v Steven Karuti,Electoral Commission (HCT-05-CV-CA-0009-2003 ) (HCT-05-CV-CA-0009-2003) [2005] UGHC 94 (27 April 2005)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-05-CV-CA-0009-2003

The High Court rejected a preliminary objection to an election appeal, holding the appeal was filed within 30 days and was therefore competent.

• Election Petition Appeals
• Appeal Timelines
• Procedural Objections
• Election-petitions
• Appeal-timelines
• Procedural-objections

Kitgum District Administration v Print and Stationary Supplies Uganda Limited

Kitgum District Administration v Print and Stationary Supplies Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 44 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 58 (30 March 1999)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 44 of 1998

Judge

kato ,JA, Berko, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court found that the repeal of the Local Administrations Act and the establishment of the Local Governments (Resistance Councils) Statute did not extinguish the liabilities or pending suits of the Kitgum District Administration. The new Kitgum District Resistance Council is the legal successor, inheriting all assets, liabilities, and pending proceedings. The objection that the suit was brought against a non-existent party was deemed technical rather than substantive, as the underlying entity and its functions continued under a new name. The Court held that substitution of the Kitgum Distr…

Source excerpt

• Substitution Of Parties
• Corporate Liability
• Repeal Of Statute
• Debt Recovery
• Procedural Objections

Musiitwa-Kyazze v Busingye

Musiitwa-Kyazze v Busingye [1990] UGSC 13 (12 February 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Judge

Manyindo, JSC, Platt, JSC, Seaton, JSC

The Supreme Court held that while the general practice is for applications for stay of execution to be made first to the High Court, it may intervene and accept jurisdiction where the High Court has refused to entertain the application on manifestly erroneous grounds, or where there is undue delay prejudicial to the parties. Rule 41 of the Court of Appeal Rules does not impose a mandatory limitation on the Supreme Court's express powers under Rule 5(2)(b). In this case, the High Court's refusal was based on a misapplication of procedural rules and a misunderstanding of the inherent jurisdicti…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Inherent Powers Of Court
• Procedural Objections